When the search giant announced its Android mobile platform last November, it said devices running it would arrive at market by the second half of this year. Well, turns out that deadline was a bit aggressive. Android-based handsets may not be available until the fourth quarter of this year–if Google’s (GOOG) lucky. Because some handset manufacturers are “struggling” to meet even that extended deadline. And at least a few wireless carriers have abandoned plans to launch Android-based handsets this year entirely.

Apparently, a multinational consortium of companies working to develop an open mobile platform–while a wonderful idea in theory–is, in practice, a pain in the ass. Software providers are finding it difficult to develop programs on a platform still going through revisions. Handset manufacturers are having a tough time integrating that software into their devices. And wireless carriers are finding that customizing Android to promote their Internet services isn’t as easy as they’d hoped. “This is where the pain happens,” Andy Rubin, director of mobile platforms at Google, said of this particular phase of development. “We are very, very close.”

Sadly for the Google, the pain to which Rubin refers seems decidedly Android-specific. Developers building applications for Apple’s (AAPL) iPhone 3G, which will launch in early July, seem to be having an easy time of it. So much so that some are prioritizing iPhone apps over their Android counterparts–at least until Android development is painless.

A pretty dismal showing for the other four “major” search engines, which apparently bleed and sweat search market share. As noted here last week, the IT industry used to say that IBM (IBM) wasn’t the competition; it was the environment in which you compete. Today the adage seems equally applicable to Google, which dominates the search market just as IBM once dominated the computer industry.

Dear Friends; Please do not take this for a junk letter. Bill Gates sharing his fortune. If you ignore this, You will repent later. … When you forward this email to friends, Microsoft can and will track it (If you are a Microsoft Windows user) For a two weeks time period.

For every person that you forward this email to, Microsoft will pay you $245.00. For every person that you sent it to that forwards it on, Microsoft will pay you $243.00 and for every third person that receives it, You will be paid $241.00. Within two weeks, Microsoft will contact you for your address and then send you a check.”

–Excerpt from the Microsoft giveaway hoax

My God … Bill Gates really is sharing his fortune. But not with folks who help out with that infamous Microsoft email “beta test.” He’s sharing it with consumers who use Microsoft’s Live Search engine to find and purchase products online.

Today, Microsoft (MSFT) will announce “Live Search Cashback,” a sort of search-engine loyalty program that rewards users with rebates on certain purchases of products found through Microsoft’s live.com Web search. “We want to earn your loyalty and reward it with cashback savings for your everyday online shopping,” Microsoft enthuses on the Cashback site. “We are ‘The Search That Pays You Back!’”

Cringe.

Like Microsoft’s hostile bid for Yahoo (YHOO), this new service is yet another effort to bolster its laggard search service, which has long been a very distant third in the search market. Question is, will it work? Gartner (IT) analyst Van Baker says maybe. “Assuming that the rebate amounts are enough to be appealing to people, which it sounds like they are, that definitely could attract a fair number of consumers,” Baker told the Seattle Post Intelligencer. “But what they may do is just go to that site when they’re thinking about buying something, and use Google the rest of the time.”

According to figures compiled by the Interactive Advertising Bureau, spending on Internet advertising in 2007 rose to $21.2 billion, up 26% from the prior year. That’s a record high and one that exceeds the $20.9 billion spent on print, radio, outdoor and cable TV.

Unsurprisingly, keyword search, Google’s (GOOG) cash-cow ranch, generated the most revenue and claimed the largest market share–41%. Display advertising followed with 34%, classifieds at 16%.

(Image Credit: Tyler Jordan, eVisibility Insider)

Now another prominent Googler has train-hopped to the popular social-networking company as well. As first reported by BoomTown, Elliot Schrage, vice president of global communications and public affairs at Google, is leaving the search sovereign to become Facebook’s vice president of communications and public policy.

“[Elliot Schrage] will be responsible for developing the key messages we want people to understand about our products, our business and the growing global importance of social networking and what we do,” Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in an email to employees announcing the hire. “The goal here is to help people understand how the Internet can strengthen people’s relationships. Elliot will direct our efforts to work with users, media, governments and other entities around the world to ensure that Facebook’s policies are transparent, responsive, effective and are recognized as being those things. … This is a really important role for us and one that we’ve been trying to find the right person for a while. Elliot’s role will be critical to helping us scale based on our culture that values transparency, openness and honest internal communications.”

“Elliot’s role will be critical to helping us scale based on our culture that values transparency, openness, and honest internal communications”?

Clearly, Zuckerberg meant “build from the ground up a culture that values transparency, openness and honest internal communications.” Because it’s only been about six months since the Beacon fiasco, which demonstrated how grievously the company was lacking in those qualities (see “DiaperFetishFactory.com Is Sending a Story to Your Profile,” “Epicurious Has Added a Potential Privacy Violation to Your Facebook Profile,” “Fiascobook,” and “Fiascobook, Redux“).

Perhaps if Facebook recruits enough former Googlers, it too will be able to lay claim to a silly informal motto like “Don’t Be Evil.”

Now another prominent Googler has train-hopped to the popular social-networking company as well. As first reported by BoomTown, Elliot Schrage, vice president of global communications and public affairs at Google, is leaving the search sovereign to become Facebook’s vice president of communications and public policy.

“[Elliot Schrage] will be responsible for developing the key messages we want people to understand about our products, our business and the growing global importance of social networking and what we do,” Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in an email to employees announcing the hire. “The goal here is to help people understand how the Internet can strengthen people’s relationships. Elliot will direct our efforts to work with users, media, governments and other entities around the world to ensure that Facebook’s policies are transparent, responsive, effective and are recognized as being those things. … This is a really important role for us and one that we’ve been trying to find the right person for a while. Elliot’s role will be critical to helping us scale based on our culture that values transparency, openness and honest internal communications.”

“Elliot’s role will be critical to helping us scale based on our culture that values transparency, openness, and honest internal communications”?

Clearly, Zuckerberg meant “build from the ground up a culture that values transparency, openness and honest internal communications.” Because it’s only been about six months since the Beacon fiasco, which demonstrated how grievously the company was lacking in those qualities (see “DiaperFetishFactory.com Is Sending a Story to Your Profile,” “Epicurious Has Added a Potential Privacy Violation to Your Facebook Profile,” “Fiascobook,” and “Fiascobook, Redux“).

Perhaps if Facebook recruits enough former Googlers, it too will be able to lay claim to a silly informal motto like “Don’t Be Evil.”

Here’s the full text of Microsoft (MSFT) CEO Steve Ballmer’s letter to Yahoo (YHOO) CEO Jerry Yang.

Mr. Jerry Yang
CEO and Chief Yahoo
Yahoo! Inc.
701 First Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089

Dear Jerry:

After over three months, we have reached the conclusion of the process regarding a possible combination of Microsoft and Yahoo.

I first want to convey my personal thanks to you, your management team and Yahoo’s Board of Directors for your consideration of our proposal. I appreciate the time and attention all of you have given to this matter, and I especially appreciate the time that you have invested personally. I feel that our discussions this week have been particularly useful, providing me for the first time with real clarity on what is and is not possible.

I am disappointed that Yahoo has not moved toward accepting our offer. I first called you with our offer on Jan. 31 because I believed that a combination of our two companies would have created real value for our respective shareholders and would have provided consumers, publishers and advertisers with greater innovation and choice in the marketplace. Our decision to offer a 62% premium at that time reflected the strength of these convictions.

In our conversations this week, we conveyed our willingness to raise our offer to $33 per share, reflecting again our belief in this collective opportunity. This increase would have added approximately another $5 billion of value to your shareholders, compared to the current value of our initial offer. It also would have reflected a premium of over 70% compared to the price at which your stock closed on Jan. 31. Yet it has proven insufficient, as your final position insisted on Microsoft paying yet another $5 billion or more, or at least another $4 per share above our $33.00 offer.

Also, after giving this week’s conversations further thought, it is clear to me that it is not sensible for Microsoft to take our offer directly to your shareholders. This approach would necessarily involve a protracted proxy contest and eventually an exchange offer. Our discussions with you have led us to conclude that, in the interim, you would take steps that would make Yahoo undesirable as an acquisition for Microsoft.

We regard with particular concern your apparent planning to respond to a ‘hostile’ bid by pursuing a new arrangement that would involve or lead to the outsourcing to Google of key paid Internet search terms offered by Yahoo today. In our view, such an arrangement with the dominant search provider would make an acquisition of Yahoo undesirable to us for a number of reasons:

–First, it would fundamentally undermine Yahoo’s own strategy and long-term viability by encouraging advertisers to use Google as opposed to your Panama paid search system. This would also fragment your search advertising and display advertising strategies and the ecosystem surrounding them. This would undermine the reliance on your display advertising business to fuel future growth.

–Given this, it would impair Yahoo’s ability to retain the talented engineers working on advertising systems that are important to our interest in a combination of our companies.

–In addition, it would raise a host of regulatory and legal problems that no acquirer, including Microsoft, would want to inherit. Among other things, this would consolidate market share with the already-dominant paid search provider in a manner that would reduce competition and choice in the marketplace.

–This would also effectively enable Google to set the prices for key search terms on both their and your search platforms and, in the process, raise prices charged to advertisers on Yahoo. In addition to whatever resulting legal problems, this seems unwise from a business perspective unless in fact one simply wishes to use this as a vehicle to exit the paid search business in favor of Google.

–It could foreclose any chance of a combination with any other search provider that is not already relying on Google’s search services.

Accordingly, your apparent plan to pursue such an arrangement in the event of a proxy contest or exchange offer leads me to the firm decision not to pursue such a path. Instead, I hereby formally withdraw Microsoft’s proposal to acquire Yahoo.

We will move forward and will continue to innovate and grow our business at Microsoft with the talented team we have in place and potentially through strategic transactions with other business partners.

I still believe even today that our offer remains the only alternative put forward that provides your stockholders full and fair value for their shares. By failing to reach an agreement with us, you and your stockholders have left significant value on the table.

But clearly a deal is not to be.

Thank you again for the time we have spent together discussing this.

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Steven A. Ballmer

Steven A. Ballmer
Chief Executive Officer
Microsoft Corporation

Meanwhile, “people familiar with the matter” say that Yahoo (YHOO) may launch something in the next few days as well: a deal to carry search advertisements from Google (GOOG) alongside Yahoo search results. Such a deal would likely not be the sort of broad pact over which Microsoft has preemptively cried foul, but a non-exclusive arrangement open to the companies’ competitors as well. Under its terms, a real-time auction system would be used to select the most lucrative ads for a given search query from among those sold by Yahoo and Google. Microsoft too, if it were willing to participate.

That’s a good question to ask in light of FBI Director Robert Mueller’s call for “omnibus” Internet surveillance. In testimony to the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives on Wednesday, Mueller suggested legislation be passed that would give the bureau the right to monitor the Internet at the backbone level.

Said Mueller: “I think legislation has to be developed that balances on one hand, the privacy rights of the individual who are receiving the information, but on the other hand, given the technology, the necessity of having some omnibus search capability utilizing filters that would identify the illegal activity as it comes through and give us the ability to preempt that illegal activity where it comes through a choke point as opposed to the point where it is diffuse on the Internet.”

Shades of Carnivore, right? The “choke point” to which Mueller alludes is presumably the National Security Agency, which has been probing the data passing through the Internet backbone like some Orwellian spinal surgeon. Which is a little frightening. Because the packets of data being passed back and forth over the Internet don’t come prelabeled. There’s no “ILLEGAL ACTIVITY” designation. It’s just activity, and Mueller would apparently like permission to survey it all.

While respecting the privacy rights of the individual, of course. Thoughtful.

That’s a good question to ask in light of FBI Director Robert Mueller’s call for “omnibus” Internet surveillance. In testimony to the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives on Wednesday, Mueller suggested legislation be passed that would give the bureau the right to monitor the Internet at the backbone level.

Said Mueller: “I think legislation has to be developed that balances on one hand, the privacy rights of the individual who are receiving the information, but on the other hand, given the technology, the necessity of having some omnibus search capability utilizing filters that would identify the illegal activity as it comes through and give us the ability to preempt that illegal activity where it comes through a choke point as opposed to the point where it is diffuse on the Internet.”

Shades of Carnivore, right? The “choke point” to which Mueller alludes is presumably the National Security Agency, which has been probing the data passing through the Internet backbone like some Orwellian spinal surgeon. Which is a little frightening. Because the packets of data being passed back and forth over the Internet don’t come prelabeled. There’s no “ILLEGAL ACTIVITY” designation. It’s just activity, and Mueller would apparently like permission to survey it all.

While respecting the privacy rights of the individual, of course. Thoughtful.

Which isn’t surprising at all, really. Together, Yahoo (YHOO) and Google (GOOG) control more than 80% of the U.S. search market. And as Microsoft (MSFT) general counsel Brad Smith will happily tell you, that’s anti-competitive. And he’d know, right?

Net income rose 31% on revenue growth of 42% from a year ago, exceeding Wall Street estimates. Overall paid clicks rose 20% in the quarter compared with the period a year earlier. That’s down from 30% growth of the previous quarter, but better much better than the forecasts of, ahem, certain third parties. “Our ongoing innovation in search, ads and apps helped drive healthy growth globally across our product lines, yielding another strong quarter for Google,” said Chief Executive Eric Schmidt. Apparently, the slowing U.S. economy hasn’t had much impact on the company’s business.

Shares of Google soared past the $500 mark in after-hours trading on the news. Seems the company’s historic run is far from over.

The collectibles retailer claims it paid Yahoo’s Search Marketing unit, formerly known as Overture Services, some $936,000 between 2002 and 2006 for click-throughs. It assumed these click-throughs were from legitimate customers, but it turned out they were generated by Yahoo/Overture affiliates who received commissions based on the number of clicks their sites generated for advertisers.

“These clicks were not actual traffic, but were fraudulent clicks,” BigReds claims in the suit. “Affiliates of Overture used software programs, employed people, and/or directed people other than actual customers to click on plaintiffs’ links from keyword search results.”

To be fair, Yahoo did offer BigReds a refund for the fraudulent clicks. It just wasn’t as large as the retailer had hoped–$17,082.80.

Boy, that was fast. Yahoo’s (YHOO) limited two-week test of Google’s (GOOG) AdSense for Search service has yielded wondrous results. So wondrous, in fact, that we’re only a week into it and “people familiar with the matter” are already telling The Wall Street Journal that the trial may well lead to a broader outsourcing deal between the two companies.

Five bucks and a Yahoo Insta-Yodel! says the Net portal’s having another sit-down with Microsoft this week.

Anyway, by some estimates, a deal with Google would increase Yahoo’s cash flow by more than $1 billion a year. A nice little spike in revenue like that would certainly bolster Yahoo’s efforts to spur Microsoft (MSFT) into increasing its unsolicited buyout bid for the Internet pioneer. That being the case, why didn’t Yahoo forge such a partnership with Google last July when it was restructuring the company’s “ecosystem” and slaughtering sacred cows? Perhaps government approval was a concern?

A surprising trend, given the general state of affairs over at Yahoo recently and one that may, may, bode well for the first-quarter results the company is due to report on April 22. In the face of Microsoft’s (MSFT) hostile takeover offer and its claims that Yahoo’s business is on a fast downward spiral, Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang has insisted that the company will meet its first-quarter projections.

That may well be the case, if SearchIgnite’s metrics prove accurate. Said Roger Barnette, president of SearchIgnite, “If these numbers are an accurate reflection of the market, it could lead Yahoo to surpass expectations.“

Meanwhile, spending by search advertisers on MSN declined to 5.4% from 5.9%, quarter over quarter. No wonder Microsoft wants Yahoo so badly.

According to a new report from the Government Accountability Office, all manner of sensitive or stolen military gear is available for purchase online. GAO investigators apparently had no trouble at all picking up night-vision goggles, U.S.-issue body armor, nuclear-biological-chemical gear and the aforementioned F-14 fighter components at online marketplaces. Many of these items could easily be used against U.S. troops or reverse-engineered to develop countermeasures or equivalent technology, yet they were shipped to the GAO “no questions asked.”

“Given that the United States has retired its fleet of F-14s, these components could only be used by the Iranian military,” the GAO noted in its report. “By making these components available to the general public, the eBay sellers provided an opportunity for these components to be purchased by an individual who could then transfer them to Iran. The continued ability of Iran to use its F-14s could put U.S. troops and allies at risk.”

A sobering revelation. Funny that eBay and Craigslist policies and procedures prohibit the sale of things like bootlegs, animals and whatnot, but F-14 fighter components are perfectly acceptable.

That seems to be what Google (GOOG) has done with App Engine, a new service for developers who’d like to write and run their Web applications on the company’s infrastructure. With App Engine developers can establish their own little Google Labs outposts, building Google-friendly applications using Google’s own building blocks on the Google File System and Google will handle the scaling and fail-over issues.

That’s a compelling proposition–assuming you want Google to control your entire end-to-end development environment. And who wouldn’t these days? What better way to pique the search giant’s acquisitive interests than building a great big Web 2.0 sandcastle in its very own Web 2.0 sandbox? Who knows, you may be the next YouTube or, at the very least, the next Zingku or Jaiku. And if it turns out that you are, how convenient would it be for Google to acquire you, as Dave Winer noted a while back at Scripting News:

How much would it be worth to buy companies without having to transition their technology to their platform? There would be no retraining either, all the programmers in the companies they acquire would know how to work in the environment. Further, can you imagine that they’d charge universities to teach comp sci using their cloud?

“Given the cost of acquisitons, recruiting and training they can afford to blow a lot of money on free bandwidth, storage and CPU to make the buying and hiring process more efficient and increase the hit rate (the percentage of programmers who work out).”

That will no doubt come as a shock to Google (GOOG), Yahoo (YHOO) and Microsoft (MSFT), who all retain search data for a year or more. But it can’t be nearly as shocking as the Working Party’s recommendation that IP, or Internet Protocol, addresses be protected as personal information, a requirement that, were it to be implemented, could interfere with their ability to deliver relevant ads.

From the Working Party document:

A key conclusion of this opinion is that the Data Protection Directive generally applies to the processing of personal data by search engines, even when their headquarters are outside the EEA, and that the onus is on search engines in this position to clarify their role in the EEA and the scope of their responsibilities under the Directive.

“This Opinion concludes that personal data must only be processed for legitimate purposes. Search-engine providers must delete or irreversibly anonymize personal data once they no longer serve the specified and legitimate purpose they were collected for and be capable of justifying retention and the longevity of cookies deployed at all times. The consent of the user must be sought for all planned cross-relation of user data, user-profile enrichment exercises. Web site editor opt-outs must be respected by search engines and requests from users to update/refresh caches must be complied with immediately. The Working Party recalls the obligation of search engines to clearly inform the users upfront of all intended uses of their data and to respect their right to readily access, inspect or correct their personal data.”