Connected Conversations

We must stop SOPA and PIPA, two proposed pieces of legislation that would serious undermine our freedom of expression.

If these laws pass, essentially anyone would have the right to shut down my companies web site, www.tips.by, merely because it hosts shared content on an overseas web site. I am part of a tech community that is innovating and creating new jobs.

As a father of four children, I oppose this legislation that further criminalizes sharing. I am pro-sharing.

As a founder of e-thePeople, I think that sharing of information is the cornerstone of democracy. It’s called the first amendment, because it is the fundamental right that protects all others.

Sign Google’s petition here: https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/

Spread the word on Facebook & Twitter. Black out your profile image too before the government does.

1. technology, 2. politics, 3. et cetera Internet, Legalize sharing, Stop SOPA

Kleiner Perkin’s iFund really has the criteria for mobile success nailed. For the quick hits, here are what they call the “10 Criteria for iFund Success”:

1. Inherently mobile use cases
2. Context ver content
3. Real-time, immediate utility
4. Simplicity
5. Frequent usage
6. Inherently viral
7. Massive scale possibility
8. Natural business model
9. Cross-platform with mobile integral
10. Take full advantage of iphone platform

There is a ~8min portion that is definitely worth watching starting at about 14 minutes into this lecture at Stanford on iTunes U. Enjoy!

1. technology itunes u, mobile, stanford, video

John Ason, one of our investors at SocialFeet, forwarded me this interesting link about the presentation that spawned Google+. In the post, Paul Adams explains the problem of how facebook’s social graph works. On Facebook, you have one pooled set of friends, regardless of what your relationship is with each person (shown on the left). In real life, you have separate circles of friends based on common interests, geography or life stage. Here’s the graphical depiction of it:

A lot of the innovative “circles” for groups on Google+ stem from this concept. Based on interest, geography and life stage, you have different circles of friends that you want to exchange different information with. Fair enough.

But embedded into Google+ is the notion that you want to have all of these circles on a single platform. But if this diagram is to be believed, each of these circles has little or no overlap. So what’s the benefit of merging your online lives?

In contrast, there are lots of costs associated with a single platform. Complex privacy. Harder to innovate in each specialized social network space. Greater exposure to the risk of privacy violations. In other words, I think that the very analysis done to spark Google+ has the data to show that multiple platforms will serve people better than one unified platform.

[Hat tip to Rebecca Tadikonda for the inspiration for the title of this post.]

1. technology facebook, google, privacy, Social network

No doubt, Google+ is pretty slick, from a tech/UI perspective. It combines good elements from both Facebook and twitter, with a spartan google feel. It is powerfully integrated into google’s suite of products, like picassa and gmail. It is a major improvement over buzz. Google plus should get more interesting as more people use it.

Still, I think it may be too ambitious though, which will eventually cause it have unworkable privacy issues. They want to provide a master social network, which requires a complex, granular privacy model. They have created such a privacy model with the “circles” implementation of groups.

However, my thesis is that consumers will opt to belong to have 6-12 specialized social networks each for a specific content or activity vertical. For example, FB for photos, twitter for interests, linkedin for resumes, zynga for games, SocialFeet for commerce [disclaimer:I am a founder], etc. Each of these networks will have appropriate (but highly differentiated) privacy models, and users will basically adopt the default privacy model for each in a binary yes/no decision. As Fred Wilson blogs:

You either want to be totally public or totally private, but never sort of private and sort of public. It’s just too complicated to be semi-private. That middle ground is treacherous.

Could it be the one social network to rule them all? Fairly unlikely. My guess of what happens to google plus: it gets co-opted by some geography (like urkut) or vertical segment and becomes a niche social network of some sort that survives. So far, the most interesting segment is about google itself (like Sergey Brin’s kite boarding pics from Alaska) and the twitter-like public discussions.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out, especially as Google continues to experiment with social at such a large scale.

1. technology facebook, google, privacy, q&a, rise of vertical social networks, socialfeet, zynga

One of my heroes, Steve Blank, has just given a terrific interview over at Giga Om. Here’s the money section that starts almost exactly at the 14 min mark:

What is that I want to do in this bubble? As I said, in this one, the valuations are not going to be based on concepts. I think they are going to be based on either large networks of 10s or 100s of millions of users, or they’ll be be based on high revenue growth, or maybe a combination thereof. I would use the money to buy scale as quickly as possible. I would use the money to buy visible as quickly as possible. Not for BS, but to promote the first two items. And that’s an opportunity that can easily be squandered if you don’t think about it strategically. The goal in this bubble is to be the largest possible business, not to become boo.com. Boy if you are smart entrepreneur with a big pile of cash, I believe you can engineer a liquidity event from God.

Here’s the entire video, cued to the right spot. Enjoy!

1. technology bubble 2.0, lean startup, liquidity event from god, startups, video

Bill Gurley has posted a great piece about Google’s business strategy that has turned into today’s “must read” post. In it, he accurately describes Google’s ad words as its “castle” and its open source strategy as its “moat.” Simply put, Google creates, supports and gives away platforms like Firefox and Android that enable Internet access in order to ensure its lead position as the default search engine everywhere.

As Bill rightly points out, direct assaults on Google by land look pretty hopeless. It looks pretty dark for direct competitors like Bing. It also creates collateral damage by destroying any business that wants to make money building a phone operating system or browser. But does that mean the castle is perfectly defended?

I believe that Google has a massive vulnerability, but it isn’t from a direct search competitor. Essentially, Facebook is substitute for search, not a direct competitor. As people discover products and services socially, they will go directly from intent to purchase–bypassing search entirely. This threat is not theoretical; indeed, one of customers at SocialFeet has truly zeroed its SEM budget in 2011. While dramatic, I think this move is a leading indicator of where smart merchants are moving. If so, this is very bad news for Google’s adwords castle.

This dynamic is an air attack, and Google’s castle, despite its incredible land moat, looks entirely defenseless against it.

1. technology facebook, google, social commerce

Facebook is a monster of a company, no doubt. It seems that world domination is its ambition, and it is well on its way towards that goal. But will it dominate social commerce, as it has so many other areas?

It turns out that social networks like Facebook “are not structurally well-suited to be networks of sellers,” according to a fascinating study done at Columbia (download pdf). The problem? Social networks like Facebook and Twitter end up being too clustered. When I click on a high school classmate from Hunter, I inevitably find that we have 60+ friends in common.

Why is this a problem? If you start traversing the social graph from my profile, you’ll likely to get stuck in a Hunter cul-de-sac. I love my classmates, but after a while, it’s a deadend that eventually gets boring. And empirically data from a social shopping site in France support this explanation.

The solution is to foster a network that looks more like a web than a cluster. More links are better, but you want to make sure that they take to different places. In my opinion, this structure can be induced through proper incentives, but it does not occur naturally. Herein lies the opportunity.

But it is likely to be tricky, because such “strategic attempts to alter a social network’s structure can lead to unintended consequences.” Unfortunately, the researchers don’t provide much detail into what alternative incentives are worth trying or what consequences they are concerned about.

Since the opportunity involves creating a new network, it seems to me that it is not only large but defensible. A difficult problem, perhaps, but what a nut if you can crack it! Given how different it is than building a global social network, I think it is one that Facebook is unlikely to crack by itself.

1. technology academia, facebook, research, social commerce

I think Christopher Columbus day is really a celebration of discovery. I also believe that the goal of entrepreneurs is to discover a repeatable business. So, what can entrepreneurs learn from Christopher Columbus?

1. The most transformational ideas are crazy. I mean, reach the far east by going *west*?
2. The funding for most grand discoveries often comes from angels, who do so for commercial reasons principally
3. You will probably discover something different than what you originally set out to find (and it may take awhile before you figure out what it is that you’ve discovered!)
4. Even when you find something amazing, you won’t necessarily end up rich

Draw your own conclusions!

1. technology, 3. et cetera christopher columbus, discovery, entrepreneurs, lessons learned

I just finished reading The Facebook Effect by David Kirkpatrick. I enjoyed it a lot. It is very thorough, both on the inside scoop but also in terms of analysis. Since not everyone may be as interested in every last detail about Facebook as I am, i thought that I’d post a brief summary of the highlights. Cliff notes, if you will.

- scalability was perhaps the central concern in the early days. Zuckerberg clearly understood the lesson of friendster
- Zuckerberg was very explicit about having profiles represent real people. Identity warranting is a key value of Facebook today IMO
- the launch of the photos application within Facebook is fascinating. Two core features of photo sites were — and still are — left out: high res versions and the ability to order prints.
Zuckerberg bet that social photos with tags were what people really wanted and he was right. More photos are viewed on Facebook thten all other sites combined. Photos are truly the killer app.
- the newsfeed was incredibly controversial. Zuckerberg bravely stuck to his guns because he saw the site engagement skyrocket even as 10% of the site protested the new feature!!
- Zuckerberg is supremely confident. He is not swayed but money — he turned away a $10mm offer only 4 months after founding Facebook at age 20 and has since turned down multi-billion offers. He marches to his own beat, and has control of the board of Facebook.
- Zuckerberg is ambivalent about ads and it shows. The second half of the book is blah, because Facebook has neither been wildly successful nor a complete failure at making money. This story remains unfinished IMO.

I am immensely impressed by Mark Zuckerberg. He has gone ‘all in’ perhaps 3 times with innovative and controversial features that have revolutionized the web and society. He has executed extremely well where many others tried and failed.

I eagerly await the next chapter as it unfolds! As well as the movie soon to be released, ‘the social Network’, with its fictionalized account of the human drama behind Facebook. UPDATE: It sounds that the movie is a start contrast to the book. The movie is entertaining but totally misses any of the real points of Facebook.

1. technology book, facebook, mark zuckerberg, review

Robert Scoble tweeted this: “Heh, @techcrunch’s @Arrington must be proud. If you go to http://google.com and type “tech” it suggests “crunch.” #thenewSEO.” That got me thinking: what is the alphabet according to google?

So, here is the google alphabet as of today on my computer (while logged out of google):

a - aol (then amazon, aim, apple)
b - bank of america (best buy, bing, bed bath and beyond)
c - craigslist (chase, cnn, costco)
d - dictionary (droid x, dell, drake)
e - ebay (espn, expedia, eminem)
f - facebook (facebook login, fifa, fandango)
g - gmail (google maps, google.com, glee)
h - hotmail (hulu, homedepot, hostop)
i - ikea (iphone, imdb, inception)
j - jetblue (jet blue, jfk, jersey shore)
k - kmart (kayak, kohls, katy perry)
l - lirr (lowes, lost, linkedin)
m - mapquest (myspace, msn, mta)
n - netflix (nj transit, new york times, nordstrom)
o - orbitz (oovoo, old navy, optonline.net)
p - pandora (paypal, petco, people)
q - quotes (qvc, queens college, quest diagnostics)
r - realtor (rite aid, run, radio shack)
s - staples (sears, skype, sprint)
t - target (twitter, td bank, ticketmaster)
u - ups (usps, utube, univision)
v - verizon (verizon wireless, victoria secret, vlc)
w - weather (walmart, white pages, wikipedia)
x - xbox (xm radio, xe, xkcd)
y - yahoo (youtube, yahoo mail, yelp)
z - z100 (zappos, zilllow, zip codes)
1 - 105.1 (1010 wins, 103.5, 101.5)
2 - 2010 calendar (24, 2012, 25 to life lyrics)
3 - 311 (30 rock, 3ds, 3m)
4 - 4chan (411, 4th of july, 4shared)
5 - 50 cent (50 cent weight loss, 500 days of summer, 5 guys)
6 - 60 minutes (6pm, 6th ave, 6 flags)
7 - 7zip (7online, 7chan, 7 eleven)
8 - 8 mile (80’s music, 800 flowers, 808 drum)
9 - 92.3 (97.1, 90210, 92nd street y)
0 - 007 (0, 02, 0-60 times, 06880)
@ - @kingjames (@font-face, @live.com, @bpglobalpr)
& - &nbsp (&lt, &, &hearts, &amp)
. - .net (.rar, .net framework, .mkv)
-,+,!,#,$,*+,=,{,},|,[,],\,?,/,<,> — “your search did not match any documents”

Apparently these results are supposed to be based on frequencies of past queries, with some sort of time element too, and surprisingly to me, your physical location. In other words, the alphabet according to google may evolve over time–a new element of the “google dance”.

Some quick impressions:
- don’t expect to win the letter “g” easily! droid x also looks like intentional self-promotion
- who is katy perry? what is xe?
- some interesting local results: mta, 1010 wins, queens college, nj transit, 6th ave
- potentially “dangerous” results: 4chan
- some shoutouts to competitors: bing, .net, twitter, facebook, etc.

I have to say that the feature can be a little bit distracting too, but I suppose that is part of the point. In any event, very interesting. Go to Google.com to check it for yourself, and please comment if you find anything interesting in your google alphabet.

1. technology alphabet, google, real-time, search

Using YouTube, this one man has become the most watched educator in the world. His story is pretty neat, as is his pedagogical philosophy. Doesn’t hurt that he appears to be incredibly smart and curious. I plan to check out some of the instructional videos, and see if it would be good for my kids!

Enjoy!

1. technology, 3. et cetera education, hedge fund, inspiration, youtube

Steve Jobs has a terrific quote about the true disruptive potential of the iPad:

When we were an agrarian nation, all cars were trucks. But as people moved more towards urban centers, people started to get into cars. I think PCs are going to be like trucks. Less people will need them. And this is going to make some people uneasy.

He wants to undermine PCs, but also Macs! Wow.

1. technology agrarian, Apple (AAPL), disrupt, iphone, Personal computer, Steve Jobs

Haunting, new age, and especially appropriate for this blog. Enjoy!

1. technology, 3. et cetera video

Mark Suster wrote a provocative post about a common phrase in the entrepreneurial community called “Failing Fast.” He says:

Failing fast “is so self centered it winds me up. Tell that to the person who wrote you the $50,000 of their hard earned money and entrusted you to try your best. Fail fast? How does your brother-in-law feel about that?

Fail fast = quit and give up easy = spaghetti against the wall = no clear strategy going into your business = no ability / willingness to try and pivot as market conditions change = easy way out…”

First, his tirade smacks of hypocrisy. Does Mark re-up on all his portfolio companies when they are having trouble getting traction, or does he triage his portfolio and let the losers fail? No, each company in his VC portfolio is like strand of spaghetti and his strategy is to have one or two of them stick. Like all successful VCs, he plays the gorilla game and makes all of his profits by doubling down on a few winners and folding quickly on the losers.

Second, he misconstrues the point. His second paragraph is way off base. Failing fast = learning and pivoting. Think Odeo + Twitter. Were the initial investors of Odeo happy or unhappy that Jack Dorsey’s decision? Failing fast has nothing to do with abandoning your fiduciary duties to your investors. This is a serious and false accusation to make of entrepreneurs who talk about “failing fast.”

Third, I’ll admit that “failing fast” sounds bad. But that is on purpose, to be intentionally provocative. When we look at successful startups like Amazon, Google, Ebay, etc., their success looks obvious and easy. Revisionist history makes the rise to glory appear like smooth sailing. To combat this myth, “failing fast” focuses on the risks and, more importantly, the learning that startups and entrepreneurs must do. The unit of output for a startup is validated learning. You have a general theory, based on a set of hypotheses. You test them in order to reduce your risk as quickly possible, and pivot as necessary.

Mark’s idea about “fast” is wrong too. It isn’t about folding the company quickly; it’s about failing (and then pivoting) from smaller tests way before the whole thing is doomed.

Fundamentally, Mark misses the point. Of course, you can learn from success and that is preferred route. It is just very rare. Failures large and small are a reality, but the real question is how you deal with them. The real point is this: the opposite of success isn’t failure, it’s mediocrity.

So what do I tell “my brother-in-law who invested $50,000″? I share my hypotheses and the results of my experiments with him. And hopefully SocialFeet is more like a Twitter and not like an Odeo, but in either event, we’re along for the ride together.

1. technology, 3. et cetera