*michael parekh on IT*

ON AMAZON AND MUCH ADO ABOUT BLOGGING

PLAYING HARDBALL

Memeorandum's been abuzz with the brouhaha between the authors of "Naked Conversations"  Robert Scoble of Microsoft and Shel Israel (a case for Corporate Blogging), and Amazon.com's CTO Werner Vogels. 

Om Malik summarizes the episode as follows:

"Werner Vogels, the CTO of Amazon, has written a nakedly honest post asking Shel and Scoble - why Amazon should institutionalize blogging.

I wanted them abandon their fuzzy group hug approach, and counter me with hard arguments why they were right and I was wrong. Instead they appeared shell-shocked that anyone actually had the guts to challenge the golden wonder boys of blogging and not accept their religion instantly..."

"There is a whole bunch of people saying Vogels apologized. Here is what he said: “Most people seem to agree that my line of questioning was somewhat unforgiving when I felt they didn’t come up with the right answers. I promise to be nicer to our next guests.” Does that sound like an apology to you, or something got lost in translation."

The whole thing seems to be a mis-communication of expectations. 

Amazon didn't give the two authors a heads-up that their CTO would be asking for "hard evidence" on why Amazon should institutionalize blogging, and as a result, the two seemed to have shown up with their standard "blogging is going to be REALLY cool for companies" presentation, laced with neat anecdotes about how companies big and small were using blogs and blogging.

This was not what Werner was expecting, as he explains it:

"...if you come to Amazon to tell us our business is going to really suffer if we do not blog, you better be prepared to defend your ideas with very strong arguments and hard evidence. We expect that from anyone, externally or internally, who wants to promote an idea within Amazon."

I can empathize with Scoble and Israel's predicament at this meeting. 

As one of the first Wall Street analysts evangelizing the commercial opportunities of the internet starting in 1994, I can remember a number of meetings with institutional investors and corporations where the senior people demanded more than just "hand waving" about how the internet's going to be so great.

They wanted solid, quantitative data.  And they were right to expect it.  In those meetings, I was lucky enough to have been given the heads-up by those setting up the meeting, and went in with a lot more customized thought and work that tried to provide the numbers specific to the needs of the organization I was presenting to.

The problem is of course that in the case of early technology trends, it's hard to provide "hard evidence".  And the onus of course is on the organization in question, to do the work to figure out why the trend may be important to it's business. 

In this case, it doesn't seem like it was Scoble and Israel's responsibility to provide a customized "blogging case" for Amazon.  They certainly weren't asked for one, and as a result, they didn't have one.

Hopefully, next time, the expectations are better coordinated.

Oh, by the way, if you want my hypothetical case for why Amazon should embrace blogging in a more mainstream way than they have, take a look at this post titled "On Amazon.com starting a Blogging service, a hypothetical case", published back last July. 

There are even some hard numbers specific to Amazon in it.

ON SONY PSP "A GAME PLAYER PERIOD"

OVER AND OUT

What a difference a year makes.  Hollywood Reporter's article titled "UMD losing H'wood Game", reviews the valiant effort by Sony to leverage it's portable game player, the PSP into being much more than a game player with it's mini-DVD discs, aka the UMD (picture via Gizmodo). 

As the Hollywood Reporter article notes:

"Exactly a year after it was launched in the U.S., the Sony PlayStation Portable's days as a hand-held movie-viewing device might be numbered.

Disappointing sales have slowed the flow of movies on the proprietary Universal Media Disc to a mere trickle. At least two major studios have completely stopped releasing movies on UMD, while others are either toying with the idea or drastically cutting back."

In a post last July, I'd commented on the euphoria in the air around Sony leveraging it's portable Playstation platform into being much more than a game player. 

Over 4.5 million of the discs had been sold around 5 million players at the time, with most of the movie studios pumping out some of their movie catalog in the new format.

Back then, I'd speculated on Apple being a better potential partner for the movie studios with a video version of it's iPod, which had NOT been announced as of yet, but speculation was in the air.

The rationale was straightforward:

"In general, a rival content provider has to balance their support for the next, great content distribution platform with supporting a content rival (in this case Sony, which also owns a movie studio).

If they had their druthers, they'd rather partner with an Apple, who has no content ax to grind, or even prefer to do nothing and wait, than support a verticalized rival.  It's an open secret that Apple is on the cusp of announcing a video iPod soon."

The Hollywood Reporter cites another reason for the lack of popularity of the platform amongst movie studios. 

"No one's watching movies on PSP," said the president of one of the six major studios' home entertainment divisions. "It's a game player, period."

It's not often I find myself nodding in agreement with a Hollywood "suit" when it comes to digital media, but this is one of those times.

Technology often races ahead of mainstream audiences' ability and desire to absorb new ways of doing some old, favorite things.  The current rage of releasing feature length movies video iPods and the like, may also be a flash in the pan, cool during the novelty phase, but not practical in the long run.

This is not to say video of other type (shorter clips and features, etc.) may not be popular through the mainstream phase.  It's just that we're still in the wild and woolly, experimental phase of all this.  And it's important to keep reminding ourselves of that.

ON MICROSOFT CEO BANNING GOOGLE AND iPODS

HOPES AND WISHES...

The bloggers on memeorandum are abuzz this morning over this quote by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer from an interview with CNN:

"..I've got my kids brainwashed: You don't use Google, and you don't use an iPod."

As a long-time fan of Microsoft:

• I hope Mr. Ballmer was just joking, playing the "Big Bad Ballmer"-Dad. 
• I hope Microsoft unlike the US auto industry of yesterday, doesn't preclude it's employees from using competitor's products (...not?*). 
• I hope all the professionals at Microsoft, especially the senior management, constantly use competitor's products so that they can first-hand appreciate the pros and cons of their own offerings, and make them better.
• I hope Microsoft's engineers reverse-engineer competitor's products and come out with versions of their own that are at least 80% as good as the original, but then take over the world leveraging the company's dominance in related computing markets.

Err, I guess I don't need to hope for that last one, since it's ingrained in the company's DNA for the last thirty years.  But I stick with the rest of the hopes and wishes.

Footnote:

* From Gary Wisnieswki, Trial by Fire.

ON FRANCE BEATING THE US IN BROADBAND

ZOOM, ZOOM...

It's not just  South Korean and Japanese companies who are beating US companies in providing the fastest and cheapest broadband services (wired and/or wireless) to their mainstream consumers.  French companies are getting their chops in as well, according to this article in the Wall Street Journal titled "How France became a leader in offering faster broadband".  Om Malik has written about this for some time, as he reminds us in this post. 

Some excerpts from the WSJ article:

"For years, France's telecommunications industry was a state-owned monopoly with one of the world's most backward broadband markets. But thanks to deregulation six years ago, French consumers have access to high-speed Internet service that is much faster and cheaper than in the U.S.

One telecom company in particular has exploited the changes and created competition in France -- a start-up called Iliad. Over 1.1 million French subscribers pay as low as €29.99 ($36) monthly for a "triple play" package called Free that includes 81 TV channels, unlimited phone calls within France and to 14 countries, and high-speed Internet. The least expensive comparable package from most cable and phone operators in the U.S. is more than $90, although more TV channels are generally included..."

"How did France get ahead of the U.S. in broadband services? In 2000, French regulators required the country's dominant France Telecom SA to make its national network of phone lines available to other providers of phone and Internet services.

France Telecom had to allow alternative providers like Iliad, Neuf-Cegetel, and Telecom Italia SpA's Alice to install their own equipment in the massive underground centers that collect thousands of phone lines..."

"Indeed, Iliad has created intense competition in France, and that has resulted in faster broadband speeds. Free offers download speeds of up to 24 megabits per second. In the U.S., the average broadband connection offered by telephone and cable companies is about 1.5 megabits per second, although a few companies offer speeds comparable with Free's or even faster.

The connection speed enables Free to deliver new services. For example, users can simultaneously watch one channel on their TV and another on a laptop or computer screen. Free says it will make high-definition TV a part of its package by September, beating major telecom providers in Europe to the punch."

It's not the first time France has beaten the US in terms of online services.  Thanks to a government-lead initiative back in in 1982 to found Minitel, French consumers enjoyed a text-based online service that offers much of the content, commerce and community of the web today while America Online was not even a gleam in Steve Case's eye. 

We only had CompuServe in the eighties, which was more oriented towards geeks, and much too expensive for mainstream consumers.

So maybe we'll get affordable 24 megabits per second broadband in a decade or so, using France as a relative benchmark.

However, it may just be a darkest before the dawn situation here.  I choose to be more optimistic on the wireless broadband side in the US.  Again, see this post titled "Five years for a nation-wide Wi-Fi" by Om for more on how companies like Google and MetroFi can potentially change the game.

ON YAHOO! VOIP IM NEEDING TO GO WIRELESS

SET IT FREE

A few days ago, in a post titled "Yahoo! does Skype better", I discussed the company's launch of a Computer to Phone telephony service via the internet (aka VOIP), as part of it's globally popular Instant Messenger (IM) service. 

Since then, I've had a chance not only to become a subscriber, but an avid user of the service.

As a long-time Skype user, I've used a similar service (Skypein) there for some time.  However, I find several advantages of using the Yahoo! version of the service.

1.  It leverages my Yahoo! address book which is already populated with my contact database.  On Skype, I have to remember to sync my primary address book on a regular basis.

2.  Yahoo! allows me the flexibility of having not just one, but multiple local numbers in different parts of the US and overseas, that all feed into my one Yahoo! voice mail box.  This costs $29/year/number, and it's allowed me to get local numbers in multiple cities on the east and west coast, along with London, where I am right now. 

3.  These charges are rolled into my bill for other Yahoo! services I already subscribe to, like Yahoo! Mail, etc.  The "one-bill" advantage touted by the phone and cable companies, is much more convenient off a service like Yahoo! where all this stuff is much more integrated than at the incumbent communication companies.

But most of all, it's great to be able to have a local number in these cities friends and business associates can call, that comes into your laptop and/or PC, wherever you are in the world.

With a bluetooth head set, you're all set to go for some marathon phone sessions without worrying about hotel surcharges and voicemail tag on multiple phones.

It's interesting how in this day and age, local numbers still make a difference to people, especially on the business front.  It seems to suggest that you're going the extra mile.  And for friends, it makes all the difference in the world that you're saving them money when they call you.

It's like having your own little telephone company, with the ability to configure all the incoming/outgoing phone calls, phone identities, your locations, along with voice mail, YOUR way.

It's a subtle but important difference vs. the traditional way of doing telephony on the phone company's (wired or wireless) terms, and not obvious until you've tried it.

Now I admit not everyone will want multiple numbers, but it's a feature I find more useful than expected.

And I think the notion of offering multiple local numbers to people in the long-term might be more important to mainstream audiences than one might think at first.  Just keep in mind how New Yorkers react to 212 vs. the new 646 area codes.  The same thing goes for most other cities around the country.

As an aside issue, I'm not sure if the Yahoo! implementation of internet telephony has the same peer-to-peer architecture as Skype, and thus uses spare capacity of my PC and/or laptop to route other calls as Skype does.  If anyone has an answer to this, I'd appreciate a comment and/or email.

The one feature I now wish for of course, is to be able to have this Yahoo!  telephony feature on a mobile phone.  And there I think I may run into a roadblock from Yahoo! that's more political and business-model driven rather than technology-limited.

Yahoo! currently offers a "Yahoo! Go" phone in partnership with AT&T/Cingular, using the Nokia 6682 in the US.  That network has a good all you can eat data plan, which is based on GPRS speeds.  It's not as fast as Verizon's EV-DO data network, but better than what T-Mobile offers in the US currently.  But Verizon's network doesn't travel overseas since it's not based on GSM.

As many of you know, only T-Mobile and AT&T/Cingular phones are based on GSM technologies, thus enabling the use of their phones in Europe and many parts of Asia.

I now want my Yahoo! internet telephony service on my cell phone (or mobile as they call it here in England).

What I'd love to be able to do is use my data plan on the Yahoo!/AT&T-Cingular/Nokia phone for Yahoo! internet telephony via Yahoo! Instant Messenger for VOICE communications in the states, and eventually overseas via roaming data services agreements.

Of course, that would be anathema to Yahoo!'s current partner AT&T/Cingular, and thus that feature does not seem to be enabled in the current version of Yahoo! Go.

As a result, this "Yahoo! phone" offers the ability to get voicemails, but stops short of offering data-enabled internet telephony via the IM client on the device. 

Business priorities win out over customer priorities...for now.

But you can't fight broadband, wired or wireless.  It's only a matter of time before internet telephony via broadband data plans becomes mainstream over cell phones. 

Yahoo! has taken a good first step to making computer to phone calling more mainstream in the US with its huge Instant Messenger user base. 

It's also ahead of the other GYMAAAE companies in this capability...for now.

But it needs now to lead and take the next step to making the service available on cell phones.

Before Google, Microsoft, AOL, or Skype/eBay does.

I of course will go with whichever provider offers this first.  It's too cool a capability not to have.

ON APPLE, VISTA AND PROVOCATIVE "NEWS" HEADLINES

DEATH AND TAXES

(Update, Monday 3/27, 7:30pm EST:  Both the Wall Street Journal and CBS Marketwatch have stories confirming AppleInsider's account of the tax-driven nature of Steve Jobs' sale, as noted by Zoli Erdos in the comments to his earlier post.  No updated story on Apple as yet on The Register's site.)

Before more folks interested in Apple and Apple stock get stressed reading the provocative headline in The Register this morning off memeorandum titled "Jobs Dumps Apple Stock", let me point out the context.

First, the back-story off the Register's inflammatory storyby Andrew Orlowski:

"Apple Computer founder and CEO Steve Jobs sold 45 per cent of his Apple stock this week. Jobs sold 4.57m shares at a price of $64.66, netting him a cool $295m.

Jobs was granted the 10m shares in 2003, but they didn't vest until now.

Jobs retains 120,000 vested stocks that were granted in 1997. Last year, Jobs earned $1 salary from Apple."

The story has some of the facts, but no context and the sub-headine "Vested? Sell!", firmly expressing the editorial viewpoint of the author on this "news".

Now, the context, which ironically is better provided by an internet Apple news site, the AppleInsider:

"He (Jobs) did not sell any of his stake in the company.

In order to meet his tax obligations on the 10M restricted shares, which vested this month, Jobs elected to net-share settle -- essentially allowing Apple to withhold and pay to authorities the portion of the 10M shares that would meet his tax payment requirements.

On March 19 -- the date of the transaction -- this portion amounted to 4,573,553 shares at $64.66 a share, or a whopping $295.7M tax payment. Apple then turned over to Jobs the remaining 5,426,451 shares, which at the close of the market on Friday were worth about $325.4M. The value of the withheld shares ($295.7M) will be turned over to the appropriate tax authorities.

As part of the net-share settlement, Apple will essentially sell, repurchase and then retire the 4,573,553 shares it used to pay Jobs' taxes. These transactions will not represent expenses to the company, but will be accounted for as reductions to cash with corresponding reductions to shareholders' equity.

Therefore, the net-share settlement will have the effect of a share repurchase by the company -- essentially Apple reinvesting in itself, which will reduce the number of outstanding Apple shares on the market."

So, folks, nothing to see here. 

Other readers on memeorandum, do not get agitated like our friend Forever Geek here.

This kind of a post by The Register makes me empathize with Scoble's outrage over the reporting from an Australian publication suggesting that 60% of Windows Vista needs to be re-written. 

While I continue to be a fan of the Register for tech news, I guess I'll have to read their stuff with a more skeptical eye from now on.

This has been a public service blog post by this author on this beautiful Sunday, wherever you are.

ON CLASSICAL MUSIC DOING BETTER ONLINE

SLOW AND STEADY...

As a long-time fan of classical music, it was satisfying to see this New York Times article titled "Classical, now without the 300-year delay". 

The article is about why classical music has been under-represented in the online revolution to date, and how that is changing.

Specifically, the article describes:

"...a new initiative by the Universal Music Group built on its Deutsche Grammophon and Decca labels...(who are making possible)...digital downloading (of specific classical concerts) via the iTunes Music Store (itunes.com)...

...Although pricing is not final, each live concert will probably cost about $10 to download, less for complete individual works."

On the why this has not happened before, the article  explains the one reasons that's often overlooked in the conventional view of seeing the giant music publishing firms as the major foot-draggers in taking their catalogs online:

"The digital marketplace is...stimulating fresh approaches by more traditional music institutions. The New York Philharmonic, in its three-year project with DG Concerts, is taking a financial gamble in the hope of reaching a worldwide audience.

As part of the contract, the Philharmonic members chose a percentage of royalties rather than their usual flat fee up front. The recordings remain the property of the Philharmonic, which has licensed them to Deutsche Grammophon."

It's also about other financial stumbling blocks:

"By servicing orchestras that already have their concerts broadcast on radio, Deutsche Grammophon and Decca avoid studio session costs, which run between $100,000 and $250,000 for major orchestras.

The orchestras involved in the Universal initiative will provide the record companies with edited tape. The labels will do the mastering, prepare the tape for downloading, supply artwork and liner notes to the digital music services, and handle promotion costs."

The entire article is well-worth a read whether or not you're a classical music fan, as it provides some insight into how the obstacles for "venue"-driven performances going online, are slowly going by the way-side (think not just classical music concerts, but theater for example). 

It's also a must-read for any one who's interested in specific metrics on how online music downloads are doing vs. their off-line counterpart.  Recommended.

ON PLATIAL AND GEO-SOCIAL NETWORKING

MEMORIES LIGHT THE CORNERS OF MY STREETS...

Here's a new twist on an old idea.  It's a company named Platial, described by Wired Magazine as:

"...a new and growing community site...that's spreading a decidedly personal layer of geographic data atop the familiar terrain of online mapping.

Platial provides a home for people who love quirky geographical information or just want to mark the locations that have meaning to them.

Sign up for a free account, and you can start building and sharing personalized maps, complete with place markers, tags and descriptions of each spot. Collaborate on them with your buddies, or keep them to yourself."

I haven't tried it yet, but the concept seems promising.  It's decidedly a "Web 2.0" company, employing tags, mash-ups, an ad-sense driven business model, and the obligatory company blog.

It's a young site, with the following metrics reported by Wired:

"The site boasts more than 1,600 registered users and 30,000 unique visits per month. Its 735 user-created maps chart 41,000 places."

Having lived in Manhattan for over two decades, I can empathize with the core drive for a site like this.  Often whizzing through the Manhattan streets in the back seat of a cab, the mind cycles through different memories over the years as the street corners flash by.

Would enough people have the patience and inclination to actually share these with the world through a geo-location powered social networking site? It remains to be seen, but the idea probably has legs, at the very least for tourism and travel related communities.

ON JIGSAW ACCELERATING THE STATUS QUO

GO WITH THE FLOW?

Mike Arrington of TechCrunch is upset about a new start-up Jigsaw, that in effect is creating a marketplace for people's business card information.  As he explains:

"Well, just as soon as one company stopped being evil, another one has stepped in to take its place. Jigsaw is a marketplace for contact information, and it is very efficient.  (Author's note:  The other company Michael is referring to is Plaxo, which is the grand-daddy of contact info companies, but works very differently).

It boasts detailed personal contact information for 2.5 million people, and 7,000 new people are added every day. If you want the name, title, email address, direct phone line and/or address of any executive of any company, there is a very good chance Jigsaw will already have it in its database and will sell it to you."

Where Michael gets upset is here:

"Unlike competitors like Hoovers and InfoUSA, which gather company information by semi-legitimate means such as scouring SEC filings, cold calling companies and asking for information, and reviewing other public documents, Jigsaw simply pays people to upload other people’s contact information. Users are paid $1 for every contact they upload, and some users have uploaded information on tens of thousands of people. See the demo (and note the other demos on that page as well). Jigsaw is also self correcting, and incentivizes people to also correct bad contact information.

That’s right, the next time you hand out a business card to someone or otherwise divulge your contact information, you may be handing it out to the entire world."

While at first glance I start to get riled up against Jigsaw reading Michael's post, I tend to calm down upon further reflection.  Why? 

Well, as Michael himself explains above, there is a whole industry focused on garnering business contact information through a wide range of means and selling it both electronically and in printed directories.  In fact, they've been doing this for decades.  And charging an arm and a leg.

It's the bane of salespeoples' existence in many an industry.

What Jigsaw seems to do is accelerate the process of collecting and updating the information, and making it a lot less expensive if not free.  In that context, Jigsaw is collapsing yet another off-line business model much in the way Craig's list has collapsed the paid-classifieds business.

It's taking Plaxo and Linkedin to the next level (and yes I know, Linkedin the "least evil" here in how they operate).

At least Jigsaw doesn't focus on home addresses and contact info, yet.  And if and when they do, they'll be accelerating yet another off-line industry that has been buying and selling home addresses and contact info on hundreds of millions of consumers for decades.

In fact, taking a step back, it just seems that companies like Jigsaw are simply bringing the "efficiency" of the internet (both good and bad), to the direct marketing industry.

As Scott McNealy pithily said a while ago about the loss of privacy in the internet era, "Just get used to it".  You may think I'm being fatalistic, but I choose to look at the glass half full here.

ON YAHOO! DOING SKYPE BETTER

EASY AS PIE

The Wall Street Journal reports that Yahoo! launches computer to phone calling via it's IM product, not just computers to computers until now.  Specifically:

"U.S. users of Yahoo's Messenger instant messaging service will be able to call friends' telephones from their computers for low fees such as two cents per minute within the U.S.

Consumers can also pay to have a traditional telephone number that directs incoming calls to their computer for $2.99 a month or $29.90 a year. U.S. users can select a telephone number located in the U.S., France or U.K.

Yahoo previously offered these features to some users outside the U.S. They largely mirror what rivals such as eBay Inc.'s Skype Internet telephony unit already offer. Yahoo said its per-minute prices are lower than Skype for calling many locations.

It said the links between Messenger and other Yahoo services, such as shared address books, make it more attractive than rival offerings. "It isn't just about making phone calls," said Brad Garlinghouse, Yahoo Vice President of Communications Products."

Besides a lower price than eBay's Skype unit, the ability to leverage one's Yahoo! address book for internet telephony is a competitive feature.  And as USA Today reports, both MSN and AOL will soon offer PC to phone services as well.

Incremental?

You betcha.

Insignificant?

No siree. 

This is Yahoo! we're talking about, as mainstream you can get on the Internet.  Yahoo! making telephony feel more natural, as I discussed in this post a few days ago, is significant for both competitors and consumers alike.