Updates from October, 2007 Hide threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Twitter, Rediscovered a Year Later 

    epigonic 4:52 pm on October 19, 2007 Permalink | Log in to leave a Comment

    A little over a year ago — sometime last August or September — I started faffing about with Twitter, as early adopters here in SF started to spread the word about it.

    I liked it immediately, thought it was perhaps a wee bit twee. But we liked enough here at Vodpod we built a way to let you “tweet” a video from vodpod last December, just weeks after we launched our service. And we spent a great couple of hours dissecting its appeal with some very smart lads, Matt Webb and Jack Schulze.

    Twitter really exploded in the Spring of this year, championed by Scoble and getting a lot of attention at SXSW. Funny, though, my interest in and attention to the service waned about then.

    So I’ve been delighted to re-engage with it the past week or so. In part, it’s been for prosaic reasons. I saw that Rafe Needelman was doing a Twittercast from Web 2.0, and I’ve been checking out the various AIR (totally loving Twitterific) and iPhone clients and playing with twittering from the road. The Twitter folks get an A+ for their API work, something we’re trying to emulate here at Vodpod.

    It’s fun to be back using the service. For my money, it’s a far more interesting than the other hyped up service of the day. In the end, both are really about communication, but there is a richness and layered-ness to Twitter I just don’t find with Facebook. And interesting lesson given how much more complex Facebook is, and how simple Twitter is by comparison.

     
    • Nicole 6:54 pm on October 19, 2007 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Just out of curiosity, have you tried Pownce? I really like it but can’t seem to get my friends very interested in it. I abandoned twitter for it but have decided to give twitter another chance. I’m pretty disenchanted with facebook right now.

    • epigonic 6:59 pm on October 19, 2007 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Yeah, I did try pownce. Beautiful looking product, but I philosophically like the openness of Twitter and the fact it does one thing well. BTW, you know our little vodpod button lets you send a video to twitter, your blog and your pod at the same time, right? Sorry, always shilling for vodpod:-)

    • Nicole 7:33 pm on October 19, 2007 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Actually, I do use the Vodpod twitter thing and it works really well. I just haven’t added any videos in a long time. Guess I’d better get on it! :-)

      As far as Pownce goes, I’m still hanging on. It’s slowly getting better and better. You’re right, twitter is great because it does the one thing well. But sometimes I want to do a couple other things without the chaos of facebook or myspace. I think Pownce fits the bill :-)

  • Chris Matthews Eviscerated by Jon Stewart 

    epigonic 1:30 pm on October 19, 2007 Permalink |

    Saw Chris Matthews last night at his SF Arts & Lectures appearance. He referenced this interview, which somehow I’d missed.

    Stewart — rightly, I think — trashes his book and philosophy.

    from http://www.thedailyshow.com

     
  • How I Learned to Love the Bubble 

    epigonic 12:03 am on October 19, 2007 Permalink | Log in to leave a Comment
    Tags: bubble, silliness, web 2.0

    There is no better proof that San Francisco and Silicon Valley are a big echo chamber than the nonsense being written about the new “bubble” and related discussions about the need for startups to “bulk up” (from Om Malik no less, a man full of good sense usually) and palpitations about being five months from a bust.

    Are we in a bubble? Most likely.

    Are there too many startups with too much money? Yes and Yes!

    Should we care? No, not really.

    The bubble talk has been going on at least two years, since the 2005 Web 2.0 conference (noted before here, here, and here). For some reason, I almost always find MBAs and trade journalists most obsessed with its eventual bursting (skip a couple of paragraphs to learn why).

    At the surface, the bubble talk is always about the anecdotes and atmospherics. More companies being started. More money flowing. More competition. More parties. More difficulty hiring great engineers. More difficulty breaking through the clutter. More Brits (and now French) moving to San Francisco to start up companies.

    Interesting cocktail chatter — perhaps. But that’s not driving force of all this bubble-mania.

    What is? The notable thing that occurs during a bubble is that some people get far richer than they deserve (exhibit a, Mark Cuban selling Broadcast.com to Yahoo! for $5B). That drives the obsession. Entrepreneurs in it just for the flip worry the bubble will pop soon and that they’re going to miss out. “What if the enormous pile of dough is gone by the time it’s my turn?” For journalists, the anticipation of it bursting and its resulting carnage is perhaps the most exquisite form of schadenfreude in this age.

    But really, whether we’re in a bubble, or where we are in the “cycle” matter not at all if you are an entrepreneur. Starting a business is always a long-shot. If you are an entrepreneur, the immutable odds are that you will fail. This was true for startups in 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005 and 2007. The even years, too. Where we are in the cycle, or whether or not we’re in a bubble, it just doesn’t matter that much.

    One’s success is more likely to be determined by luck (incredibly important, often overlooked); whether you’ve got a good idea and a clear vision; how well you can execute and adapt; whether you have enough money and are stingy with the money you have; how quickly you can make enough money from your product or service to cover your costs; and how relentlessly you focus on making your users and customers really happy and building something useful or cool or both.

    Of course, it is a crowded market, so I’m quite happy for my peers to obsess about the bubble and the cycle, and to worry about whether they’ve “timed it just right.” Keep it up!

    Bonus for you outside our little cul-de-sac here in the Bay Area: see how it’s all 1999 again.

     
  • One Born Every Minute 

    epigonic 6:17 pm on October 15, 2007 Permalink |

    The NY Times reports on the new Fox Business Channel and notes how "sunny" it is compared with CNBC, which tries to evoke a harder-edged, trading-room vibe.

    One would think that most serious people who are really interested in the markets want straight business news so they can make as well informed as possible, to make the most money. Then again, Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes have they can fool most Fox News viewers most of the time and make a lot of money in the process. 

    (It is alleged that Fox News viewers were much more likely to have key
    misperceptions about the Iraq war, more likely to believe we found WMD or that
    Iraq was behind 9-11, than viewers of other news programming.)

    So it would be interesting to test this thesis and to track portfolios of FBC vs. CNBC viewers, to see how how well they do in the market. If FBC viewers are similarly misinformed about the state of the economy, they ought to lose money.

     
  • Episodes in Collective Mad-ness 

    epigonic 2:43 pm on October 12, 2007 Permalink |

    Random, assorted pieces of evidence to suggest we’ve all become content to sit in judgment of others in an angry, Old Testament god sort-of-way:

    The Democrats have a 12-year-old beneficiary of the S-Chip health care program (which provides insurance for people with incomes under a certain level) and Republicans — wrongly, it turns out — claim that the boy and his family are really rich people who don’t deserve government largess. Paul Krugman documents the sliming of an 12 year old today.

    C.W. Nevius, in his ongoing crusade in the San Francisco Chronicle about the city’s failure to take stronger steps to deal with the homeless on our streets draws the ire of homeless advocates and others who claim the city has lost its compassion and it’s full of a bunch yuppies you don’t give a damn for the poor.

    So quickly these so-called progressives are to judge, but really, is not the city already quite compassionate? San Francisco spends $150,000,000 in public funds per year on the homeless — about $24,000 per homeless person. Plus there are many millions more collected and spent in private funds. 

    Compare that to $5000 or so per student in its public schools. Maybe the judgers here should focus on how that money is spent, not how much. The people who have a right to sit in angry judgment are the parents of the 56,000 public school kids, who get shafted…

    And then Judith Warner writes today about the horribly tragic story of Carol Gotbaum, who died in custody of the police at Sky Harbor airport.  Her column is terrific — but read the comments if you want to get depressed.

    The story is messy and complicated. Gotbaum was an alcoholic mother of three, travelling alone to get treatment at a clinic in Arizona. She was scheduled to fly directly from New York to Tuscon, but changed to a later flight so she could take her children to school one last time before spending a month in rehab. She missed her connection in Phoenix, became hysterical and distraught, the police were called, they handcuffed her — after she said "I’m not a terrorist, I’m just a mother who needs help" — and put her in a holding cell.

    She apparently asphyxiated, alone in the holding cell, when she tried to bring her hands — which were cuffed — from behind her back to her font. At her funeral this past weekend, the presiding rabbi noted:

    “The central teaching of both Judaism and Christianity is to love your
    neighbor as yourself. But at that airport … there was no such love
    offered to our Carol.”

    This was the central point of Warner’s piece — to ask, have we lost "the base level of lovingkindness, decency, compassion and empathy that most
    of us assume, or at the very least hope, we and our loved ones will
    encounter in life."

    So many of the commenters skip past any consideration of that question and move quickly to judge the Gotbaum family. How could they let her travel alone?  The tone of many is insistent — mean, even — angered by the fact that the family has asked — "Why didn’t someone just put their arm around Carol at the airport."

    Just a quick attempt at empathy and you’d realize that these intimate, family decisions may seem clear in retrospect, but aren’t always without the benefit of hindsight. Gotbaum apparently insisted on going alone so her husband would be at home with the kids. Really, wasn’t there something right and honorable in Noah, the husband, staying home with the kids to minimize the impact on them? On a day when their mother was leaving for a month? Anyone in a family can understand how that might have seemed the right decision.

    And yet, we don’t empathize. Left, right, center — we judge, with ferocity. A nation of so-called Christians, who more often than not side with the angry God of the Old Testament, and don’t seem to pay much heed to the more compassionate teachings of the New.

     
  • Crazy Christians 

    epigonic 10:50 pm on October 5, 2007 Permalink |

    Bill Moyers had a frightening but excellent piece tonight about John Hagee, the evangelical leader of Christians United for Israel (known by the cuddly acronym "CUFI").

    This video provides a taste of what these folks believe.

    I try to be a tolerant person — that’s how my folks raised me — but people who wish for and actively support some imagined Rapture and Armageddon or try to reach paradise to get their 72 virgins are all homicidal zealots.

    Ahmadinejad and John Hagee — country cousins, in a weird way.

    from http://www.youtube.com

     
c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
esc
cancel