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)

It has not, as CEO Jim Safka vehemently points out in an interview with Forbes today, ceded the search battle to anyone. “It’s horses–t,” he told Forbes.com. “It’s categorically not true. We’re more committed to our algorithm and engineers than ever. While Yahoo and Microsoft are paralyzed by trying to figure out what’s happening to their companies, we’re trying to figure out what’s next in search. You’re going to see more innovation coming out of Ask then ever before.”

The first evidence of that “innovation”? Ask’s acquisition of that paragon of innovation Lexico Publishing Group LLC, the owner of Dictionary.com, Thesaurus.com and Reference.com. With Lexico’s properties in its pocket, Ask expects to expand its audience to more than 145 million unique monthly users–an increase that the company claims would make it the ninth-largest Web property globally. Whether the company means among all users or just married women primarily living in the South and the Midwest remains to be seen …

We see little to stop Google from reaching 70% market share eventually; the question, really, comes down to, ‘How long could it take?’ ”

–RBC Capital Markets analyst Jordan Rohan, March 2006

Not long at all, really.

They’re not the competition; they’re the environment in which you compete. The IT industry used to say that about IBM, but today the adage seems equally applicable to Google (GOOG), which dominates the search market just as IBM (IBM) once dominated the computer industry.

According to new metrics from Hitwise, Google’s share of the U.S. Internet search market grew to 67.9%–a 4% increase year-over-year. Google’s growth apparently came at the expense of rivals Yahoo and Microsoft. Though it claimed the second-largest share of the search market, Yahoo (YHOO) slipped to 20.28% from the 20.73% share it held a year ago. Microsoft’s (MSFT) Live Search, ranked third behind Yahoo, fell to 6.26% from 7.77% in that same period.

Seems the two companies’ recent efforts to differentiate their search offerings from Google’s haven’t done much to boost their respective market shares. Nor will they ever if the Google juggernaut continues as it has. As Credit Suisse analyst Heath Terry once noted, search is a natural monopoly business and there’s a decent chance that over time, Google will continue to gain share until it’s claimed most of the market.

And that may happen sooner than we think. Google’s closing in on 70% market share already. “By this time next year,” Silicon Alley Insider’s Henry Blodget writes, “Google’s search business will be larger and more profitable than the most profitable and legendary monopoly in history–Microsoft Windows.”

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.

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?