Posts Mentioning RSS Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • epigonic 12:52 am on October 24, 2009 Permalink | Log in to leave a Comment  

    Real-Time Web: It’s about the publishing, not the consumption 

    So much of our attention on the real-time web focuses on consumption — the notion that we want more information, faster. This was indeed the focus of our discussions at GigaOm’s “What Comes Next” session earlier this week (see my notes).

    But then we all complain about information overload and continuous partial attention. At the very same Bunker session, alpha geeks complained of the Facebook and Twitter overload problem.

    I’ve become convinced the real reason people love the real-time web isn’t for the glut of information it produces, but instead because it makes publishing more fun and enjoyable.

    It’s all about the near-instant gratification from an “@” reply, or retweet, or a “like” on Facebook. Publishers (and by publishers I mean people who blog, Tweet, foursquare, etc) love this.

    Blogging provided some of this in much earlier days, when it was a means of expression for a much smaller, insular, alpha-geek community  — but with a much higher degree of latency. You might write a blog post and  get a comment, or trackback, several hours (or days) later. But this kind of gratification fades over time — in part because so much of what we publish is so perishable — so services like Facebook and Twitter which provide more immediate feedback loops have come to dominate.

    The response rate doesn’t have to be high, or targeted, with real-time. It has to be timely. Three or four immediate replies or retweets are ample reward — one can feel heard, listened to, a part of something bigger.

    The fact that it’s all about the publishing, and not the consumption, is readily apparent to anyone who digs deeper into Twitter stats. Look at the average click-through rate of a link passed through Twitter by an A-list Twitterer, and you’ll be shocked how low it is. Folks with a million followers are lucky to get a couple of hundred, maybe a couple thousand, people clicking on a link.

    All of which is to say: if I were an investor, I’d stay away from companies focused on creating the best possible way to consume “real-time” information. The truth is, other than stockbrokers and traders and people in the news business, most of us don’t really have a need for that. But, there is probably lots of money to be made still from services that use real-time feedback loops to get people to participate, publish, and contribute to a service or platform.

     
  • epigonic 3:13 am on October 18, 2009 Permalink | Log in to leave a Comment  

    On Immigration and Silicon Valley 

    TechCrunch offers a guest post today by Vivek Wadhwa titled Beware The Reverse Brain Drain To India And China.

    It caught my eye.

    Wadhwa suggests that many younger Chinese and Indians who have come to the United States to work in the technology business are returning to their native countries, and provocatively concludes:

    It is very possible that some of the smart Indians who sat in the room with me holding their hand up on Columbus Day will start the next Google or Apple. Many of them will build companies which employ thousands. But the jobs will be in Hyderbad or Pune, not Silicon Valley. (emphasis mine)

    Really?

    Wadhwa essentially implies: if smart Indians and Chinese leave, well, there won’t be many smart people left here in the Bay Area. “The jobs will be in Hyderbad or Pune, not Silicon Valley.

    I don’t pretend to possess a definitive history or deep understanding of Silicon Valley. But it seems to me that the genius of the place is that it attracts interesting, smart, able people from all over the world and all over America, and from many diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds. Not just from one or two countries.

    To the folks going home to Shanghai and Pune and Bangalore, best of luck. Yes, our economy is a mess, but I suspect some smart kid from Romania, London, Mexico, Brazil, Cleveland, Alabama, or Vietnam will arrive to take your place. And Silicon Valley will go on.

     
  • epigonic 8:26 pm on June 18, 2009 Permalink | Log in to leave a Comment  

    Power of Passed Links 

    Fred Wilson, a VC and blogger and investor in Twitter, talks about the power of Twitter to drive traffic.

    more about “Powere of Passed Links“, posted with vodpod

    He says that among their portfolio companies, traffic from Twitter and Facebook is now about 20% the amount of traffic driven by Google; that it is growing about 3-40% per month; and that if that growth rate continues, Facebook and Twitter will drive more traffic to their portfolio companies (excluding Twitter, obviously) than Google within a year or two.

    As I wrote two months ago, I get that the potential for traffic growth is very attractive. The question for me remains is there some fundamental benefit that will allow this to happen, or are we just seeing a bubble inflate right now:

    So why the hype? Traffic. People — bloggers especially, those in Silicon Valley or the tech industry even more particularly — have realized that Twittering can send traffic.  This is why Jason Calacanis offered $250,000 for one of the 20 recommended user slots on Twitter.  It’s why so many top twitterers include links in their tweets, usually to their own properties. And why so many in the SEO/SEM business have flocked to use Twitter.

    So it’s all good, right? Twitter is the new Google, a new fountain of traffic for web properties? That depends on how you look at it, and whether you think Twitter provides some essential, fundamental value. If you question whether it provides much value other than the potential to drive you traffic, the Florida real estate cum ponzi scheme analogy goes like this: people are flocking to Twitter mostly because they believe it has the potential to drive traffic, and as long as people flock in that perception is fulfilled.

    The problems start occuring when the growth slows down, or stops.

    And this movie, we’ve seen it before. Digg and Facebook got the same (ok, not quite the same) levels of hype in their days of ascendancy, for the same reasons. People thought they could be tamed, harnessed, used as traffic hoses. As growth (or the perception of growth) in traffic from those services decreased, so to did the hype attendant on them decrease, at least among the digerati. But unlike Twitter, one could argue Facebook, and to a lesser extent Digg, provided some more meaningful, underlying value to their end users.

    I still think that the jury is out.

     
  • epigonic 3:40 am on April 24, 2009 Permalink | Log in to leave a Comment  

    Microsoft Earnings 

    I haven’t digested in any depth, and I won’t. Just know that the headline is bad.

    My main reaction: how could anyone be surprised? Their products stink. Have for a long time.

    I adandoned the Microsoft OS, and almost all MSFT software, in 2004 and have happily never looked back. I bought a $500 HP PC with Vista last year for testing, and it was so stuffed full of craplets and so horrible to use I had to move it to another room.

    Between more full-throated web applications, the Apple renaissance, and open source, you really don’t need to use a PC any longer. And once you know you have a choice, why would you want to? That’s what is killing Microsoft; the economic downturn is just the accelerant.

     
  • epigonic 9:12 pm on April 18, 2009 Permalink | Log in to leave a Comment  

    Why We Tweet: A Theory 

    In my last post here, I suggested that Twitter-cum-phenomenon was starting to feel like the Florida real estate market circa 2005 (hype growth of the service far outstripping the substantive value it provides). Given that Oprah focused her show on Twitter yesterday, I thought I should follow up that last post by trying to unpack the riddle of Twitter’s appeal.

    Dave Winer wrote this on Scripting.com earlier in the week:

    I read Farhad Manjoo’s piece in Slate about Twitter. It’s the best of a class of commentary that says that Twitter is something you can skip if you aren’t interested in periodic 140-character reports on mundane people’s lives. As I read the piece it made sense, so I was left wondering why I was and still am attracted to Twitter and use it, daily.

    I set up my first Twitter account (one of 5-6) back in September 2006. It had just launched, but geeks here in San Francisco were talking and blogging about it. I have been an on, then off, then on-again Twitterer, and have asked the same question regularly: “Why am I here? What am I really getting out of this?”

    ************************

    The Twitter team’s web craft (by that, I mean the art of building a seductive and usable service) was what initially attracted me. It has always been a joy to use and is impressively made, in a million very subtle ways.  Understanding what they’ve done well I think helps us to understand the appeal the service has had, even when so many of us have so often said: “I don’t get it.”

    Here are the things I’ve particularly admired as a fellow web crafter:

    1. Asynchronous Following

    At the time Twitter launched, the canonical social media approach was “friending” — a reciprocal relationship. Myspace, Flickr, Facebook, and dozens of other imitative social networks required (and still require, in many cases) this form of relationship. The requirement of reciprocity can feel restrictive, confining, claustrophobic and artificial all at once. Twitter picked the lock on this — first, with a hybridized approach of “friending” and “following” (like subscribing to a blog feed, but in a way that feels much more personal), and then abandoned “friending” altogether.

    Asynchronous following allowed Twitter to become a publishing platform, but with the ease and intimacy of a communications service. Celebrities and others could use Twitter to broadcast to their fans and followers, with hardly any effort at all.  Ashton Kutcher can have over a million followers because there is no reciprocity — he doesn’t have to follow them back. And it has allowed those 1 million + Twitterers who follow Kutcher get to indulge in one of the web’s guilty pleasures — lurking and stalking, with a crafty and weird combination of both anonymity (“I’m one of a million, Ashton can’t tell I read that Tweet”) and intimacy (“I’m listed as one of Ashton’s followers!”).

    2.  Ease-of-use and the 140-Character Limit

    Novelists often talk about the tyranny of a blank piece of paper. That same terror probably keeps blogging from becoming a more popular. Writing is damned hard, it takes time and effort, you have to be committed. Twitter, by sticking hard to the 140-character limit in order to inter-operate with SMS, instantly solved that problem (I don’t think that was a lucky accident; after all Ev and Biz built blogger and saw first-hand the hurdles in front of bloggers).

    Suddenly you could publish publicly on the web with less effort than it takes to write an e-mail. The short-form limitation took the pressure off, and leveled the playing field. Yeats, were he on Twitter, wouldn’t necessarily Tweet better than you or I.

    3. The Feeling That You’re Not Alone

    Last — and for me, by far, most crucially and impressively — were the simple ways the Twitter team visually articulated the notion of “following” on Twitter.  The co-mingling of Tweets you write with those from people you follow was an absolute stroke of genius. It gives the appearance — an illusion, perhaps — that someone is out there paying attention.

    It’s instructive to think about this in comparison to blogging. I am typing this post from my very trusty and capable WordPress.com dashboard. To my left and my right are every command and tool I might need as a publisher. But when I hit the publish button, I’ve not a clue that anyone will read this. It goes out to the ether, to a WordPress.com server, and then sits inert in the form of a web page that may or may not ever be seen.

    Contrast that to Twitter. Whether I’m writing a Tweet from a client like Tweetdeck or Twhirl, or Twitter.com, not a publishing tool in sight. But I’m surrounded by people. Tweets from people I follow. As soon as I hit enter, my tweet is right there in the stream. I know, intuitively, that people will probably read my Tweet; after all, staring me in the face are short messages from the people I follow. Maybe a few of my 300-odd followers will read what I’ve had to say.

    I hadn’t thought about the contrast with the actual act and process of blogging until this past week. And, in the end, this contrast solves the riddle for me.

    This UI, and the publishing mechanics of Twitter, are not technical innovations; they are psychological ones.  They give you the visceral feeling that someone out there is listening, that someone is paying attention to you.  Inventions from the community — like the use of “@” for replies, and retweets, have simply reinforced all that.

    You don’t get that from blogging –  the notion of an audience feels more abstract; your readers more distant; the perception that you are being heard more attenuated.

    ************************

    In the end, we’re left with a paradox or two. The act of Twittering  sustains — people Tweet because it’s easy, and it gives them the appearance someone is out there, listening. But the substantive value of these Tweets for readers is at best debatable.

    The act of blogging feels isolated, silo’d, lonely even — at least compared to Twitter. But the substantive results from blogging can be impressive, useful, even life-changing for the reader.

    UPDATE: Virginia Heffernan has an interesting take on Twitter in tomorrow’s NY Times magazine.

     
  • epigonic 9:37 pm on April 6, 2009 Permalink | Log in to leave a Comment  

    On Florida Real Estate, Ponzi Schemes and Twitter 

    Back in early February (2009), there was a very worth piece by George Packer in the New Yorker titled “The Ponzi State” (it’s behind a registration wall, I’m sad to report). The gist of Packer’s piece was that economic growth in Florida required a constant influx of new people.  With very few underlying industries or major businesses, many in the state made their living selling houses or building them.  As long as there was a constant influx of new people with money in their pockets to buy those houses, everyone was happy. House prices went up, more people moved to Florida to buy houses thinking prices would continue to go up, many of them got jobs selling or building more new houses, and so on.

    Then everything came crashing down in 2007. Without that constant influx of new people, turns out there was no “there, there.”

    That article has been rumbling around the back of my head as I’ve watched the hyper-explosion of Twitter the past couple of months. I’ve been wondering: is Twitter’s growth driven by some underlying fundamental benefit it provides? Or, is it like Florida — dependent on a constant influx of new people to the service? And if the latter, what happens when the growth peters out? Is all this growth and hype just inflating a big “Twitter Bubble?”

    I think the answer is yes. And I realize that writing this is complete and utter heresy in the current moment. Hear me out.

    I admire Twitter as web craft. It is very, very nicely made. But in general, how much value does a series of 140-character messages really provide? Go look at the feeds for any of the top 100 or 200 Twitterers. How much value is really there? Look hard at your feed for a day — how essential was it to get those Tweets in real-time, really?

    At the very, very best, I think you have to conclude the jury is out.  At the very worst, it’s a big, stinking, very perishable pile of inanity — mostly crap, with a very short shelf-life.

    So why the hype? Traffic. People — bloggers especially, those in Silicon Valley or the tech industry even more particularly — have realized that Twittering can send traffic.  This is why Jason Calacanis offered $250,000 for one of the 20 recommended user slots on Twitter.  It’s why so many top twitterers include links in their tweets, usually to their own properties. And why so many in the SEO/SEM business have flocked to use Twitter.

    So it’s all good, right? Twitter is the new Google, a new fountain of traffic for web properties? That depends on how you look at it, and whether you think Twitter provides some essential, fundamental value. If you question whether it provides much value other than the potential to drive you traffic, the Florida real estate cum ponzi scheme analogy goes like this: people are flocking to Twitter mostly because they believe it has the potential to drive traffic, and as long as people flock in that perception is fulfilled.

    The problems start occuring when the growth slows down, or stops.

    And this movie, we’ve seen it before. Digg and Facebook got the same (ok, not quite the same) levels of hype in their days of ascendancy, for the same reasons. People thought they could be tamed, harnessed, used as traffic hoses. As growth (or the perception of growth) in traffic from those services decreased, so to did the hype attendant on them decrease, at least among the digerati. But unlike Twitter, one could argue Facebook, and to a lesser extent Digg, provided some more meaningful, underlying value to their end users.

    In short, I think it’s arguable there is a Twitter bubble now, just as there was Florida real estate bubble in the early 2000s. It’s being propped up by perception of future, unending growth. A lot of people joining because they believe in the dream — that they can gain a lot of followers, and turn those followers into dependable “viewers” or “buyers” or “believers” or whatever.  And instead of real estate agents, we have “social media consultants,” SEO folks, web designers, entrepreneurs, politicians, and celebrities pitching themselves, or their links. In short, it’s a few million people furiously on the make.

    That’s not to say Twitter is worthless, that it has no value. The value is exactly what you’d expect a steady diet of 140-character messages would provide.

    Rather, just like Florida real estate at the height of the bubble (and Facebook two years ago), the value is a lot less than we currently perceive. It’s not the next Google. Heck, it’s not even the next YouTube (a company, it turns out, that was underhyped!).

    And that the crash might be a hard one.

     
  • epigonic 11:53 pm on March 7, 2009 Permalink | Log in to leave a Comment  

    Time to Say Goodbye to the Serial Entrepreneur 

    One of the most over-rated terms in the Silicon Valley lexicon is “Serial Entrepreneur.”

    For the uninitiated just visiting Epigonic, the term refers to those entrepreneurs who form, then flip, startup after startup. They are worshipped, especially, by Silicon Valley denizens; seen as safe hands who can produce a steady stream of singles, doubles, and the occasional triple.

    But they don’t, generally speaking, create lasting, durable companies. Hewlett, Packard, Moore, Groves, Gates, Jobs, Ellison, Brin and Page — these were not serial entrepreneurs (yes, Jobs did found Next and helped create Pixar, but only because he was forced out of his beloved Apple for a decade).

    And if we’re to get out of this crisis, we need more entrepreneurs like that. Ones who can create jobs, at lasting and durable companies. Most startups that get flipped might enrich its founders and investors, but otherwise add little to society.  Name me the start up launched by a serial entrepreneur that still has value, relevance, and strength?

    I can only think of one — PayPal. Jury is still out on Skype. I think YouTube will still likely be very, very large and important and relevant in 5-10 years, perhaps it will get added to the list.

    Let’s be honest, most startup acquisitions end up being utter failures for everyone but the founders and the investors. The founders, newly enriched, quickly lose their focus and zeal, and the once innovative startup just becomes another cog in the bureaucratic machine. Employees at the acquirer are often resentful of these newly enriched founders, and go out of their way not to cooperate in making the acquisition a success. The supposed catalytic effects to be brought by the startup often fail to appear, having typically been oversold by the startup to the acquiring company.

    Sound familiar? I could think of a hundred other examples.

    Fetishizing of serial entrepreneurs in the Valley has occurred in part because it’s been impossible for nine years now to make any money from tech startups in the public markets (Google, Salesforce, and a few others excepted). The only reliable way to make money has been to fund, flip, repeat.

    To illustrate just how ingrained this mentality is, let me tell a personal story. Two years ago,  7-8 months in to starting Vodpod (and only 3-4 months after the service launched), we got a very nice, very good, very real acquisition offer. I polled a wide array of folks for advice, and almost to a person I heard this: “Sell, take the money, stay at the acquirer for a year or two, and then start over.”

    That mentality has to change. With the economic crisis, it probably will be forced change — the fund, flip, repeat model is no longer operative.

    But if it’s impossible to have an IPO in the current public markets, or to sell your startup to an acquirer, what are the options?  We need to find a way for mid-size companies to go public again. Reid Hoffman suggested three ways in which the government could help fuel startups the other day; I’d add a fourth  –  enact securities laws and regulatory reforms that would enable a new public market for mid-tier companies. Specifically, something like the AIM in London, targeted at companies with market caps between, say, $100M and $1B, with reporting and legal requirements appropriately tailored to the size of the company.

    That might allow more entrepreneurs to focus on building durable, long-term companies, while still satisfying the needs of investors and employees for some liqiduity in the short- to mid-term. Growing companies with $30-50M per year in revenues and some profits could have a path to go public, without the current and very onerous requirements designed for Enron-like multi-billion dollar conglomerates. Some of those companies might thrive, and move on to the big boards. Some might wither. Either way, seems like a better prospect than selling out and withering away. Or doing this so much more inefficiently through an opaque and entirely unregulated secondary market.

    If we had this type of market, perhaps that would have been the path taken by Flickr and they might remain a viable, independent, innovative company. If we build such a system, it could be the path taken by current thriving startups like Automattic (WordPress), Digg, or Twitter.

     
  • epigonic 2:21 am on January 30, 2009 Permalink | Log in to leave a Comment  

    Fan Note 

    I don’t know her, but I am happy to see Caterina Fake is blogging again. She writes intelligent, interesting posts, particularly if you are a practitioner of the web arts.

    I stumbled upon her blog in late 2004, when I developed a mild obsession with flickr (and last.fm), and I promptly added her blog to my feed reader. Seems like she stopped posting a while back, maybe shortly after Flickr was bought by Yahoo!  Start by reading her post today (and the related post from 2003).

     
  • epigonic 12:25 am on January 10, 2009 Permalink | Log in to leave a Comment  

    Smack Talk about the Mobile Phone World 

    In my last job, I lived and worked from London for three years running the international consumer business for a mid-sized, publicly-traded Internet company that did a lot of work in the mobile space.

    So I went to lots of meetings in Finland with Nokia, and outside London and in Germany with Vodafone, and there was always a good bit of fun had at my expense teasing me about the pathetic state of the US mobile phone business. Lot’s of smack talk about how the US was third rate in the mobile space and would never catch up.

    Our carriers still lag in many ways, though Vodafone most European carriers are not all they’re cracked up to be.

    But it’s a completely different story as far as the phones go. At the time I was in Europe, no one could touch Nokia. How they’ve lost their way.

    With the public unveiling of the Palm Pre yesterday, the three best phones in the world now come from Silicon Valley:

    – the iPhone

    – the G1

    – the Palm Pre

    With all the doom and gloom about American mediocrity it’s nice to be reminded people here still know how to build great products.
    Now if only we could get the car makers sorted out…

     
  • epigonic 6:09 pm on January 7, 2009 Permalink | Log in to leave a Comment  

    Power of the Embed 

    There has been a bit a chatter on NewTeeVee (here), AllthingsD (here and then here), and Venture Beat (here) about online video viewing statistics in October and November 2008 (relevant Comscore releases here and here). A lot of attention paid to Hulu in particular (and whether it was growing or shrinking in the wake of the election).

    Turns out people were right to focus on Hulu, but they paid attention to the wrong thing.

    I spent a bit of time the past week looking at and parsing the data, and these numbers jumped off the screen and grabbed me by the throat:
    traffic_comparison

    Simple, very important, lesson here: videos embeds = distribution. Both YouTube and Hulu expand their reach by using embed codes.  Their users are their distribution channels.

    Hulu has effectively quadrupled its reach — it gets only 5 million people to Hulu.com, but more than 20 million watch Hulu videos around the web. Put another way: it gets only 1/10th the traffic of the Turner properties (mainly CNN.com), but gets more more overall reach (traffic) to its videos. Astounding. And very much under-reported.  But perhaps not surprising if you were reading Umair Haque in 2005 and 2006.

    The data above gets even more interesting when I cross-reference it with the most recent version of our Vodpod Sitegeist that we posted just last week. This lists the top 100 sites from which our users — tens of thousands of bloggers, Facebook members, Myspace users, Twitterers, and so on — collect video. Not one major media brand website is represented in the Top 10. No MTV, no CNN, no MSNBC, no ESPN. The closest is Hulu, which has risen to #13 (and which I firmly expect will crack the top 10 later this year).

    Instead, in addition to YouTube, Google Video, Myspace, you see scrappy folks like Daily Motion, blip.tv, and Vimeo in the Top 10. They have figured out the 21st centure equivalent of cable carriage.

    This is all very ironic given media giants like Viacom and Turner were distribution, not programming, empires first and foremost. They hustled for space and got carriage for MTV and CNN on the nascent cable nets, then worried about filling in their channels with programming and advertising.

    As I wrote on the Vodpod blog last week, some media companies are getting in the game. Viacom has at least begun making strides to understand this.

    Turner Networks and Disney, though, seem stuck in the stone age. Particularly sad is CNN; they appear to understand the idea of allowing their users to redistribute their videos, they offer something that looks like an embed code — but it’s a crippled version of an embed code, it doesn’t really work, and so they get very little re-distribution. With the exception of ESPN, most Disney sites (for example, ABC News) don’t even bother to offer embed codes.

    Maybe it’s just not a priority for them. I’m sure there are strong voices inside both organizations who view things like redistribution through viewers and users as just one more instance of Web 2.0 fluffery. But the world of video is going to evolve and change far more rapidly and dramatically in the next 10 years than it has in the past 10. The cable and satellite television business is going to look like the newspaper business by 2018, and maybe even by 2012.

    Media companies like Turner and Disney need to figure this out now; or other folks are going to have taken their place.

    *The Comscore “MediaMetrix” service  measures US visitors to a specific domain; its “VideoMetrix” services measures reach to all videos from a specific source, including reach to videos both the source domain (Hulu.com) plus embeds.

     
    • benwes1234 9:13 pm on April 2, 2009 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      This is fascinating stuff I’ve been trying to convince my company of including an embed feature in our embed player. this really clinches it.

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