<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed version="0.3" xmlns="http://purl.org/atom/ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xml:lang="en">
<title>Silicon Valley Watcher -  at the intersection of technology and media</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/" />
<modified>2010-03-19T17:46:43Z</modified>
<tagline>Former Financial Times journalist Tom Foremski provides analysis and insight into the business and culture of innovation -- at the intersection of technology and media.</tagline>
<id>tag:www.siliconvalleywatcher.com,2010://6</id>
<generator url="http://www.movabletype.org/" version="4.3-en">Movable Type</generator>
<copyright>Copyright (c) 2010, guest</copyright>

<entry>
<title>Guest Post: Online Video Today:  How We Got Here and Where We Need to Go</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2010/03/guest_post_onli.php" />
<modified>2010-03-19T17:46:43Z</modified>
<issued>2010-03-19T17:43:09Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.siliconvalleywatcher.com,2010://6.4115</id>
<created>2010-03-19T17:43:09Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">By Dave Stubenvoll, Co-founder and CEO of Wowza Media Systems.

The recent introduction of Apple&apos;s iPad has re-opened discussion around Flash and Flash support, or rather, Apple devices&apos; lack thereof. While this discussion brings to light the conflict between the two corporate agendas of Adobe and Apple, it isn&apos;t really about Flash or a methodology that Apple picked for video delivery. What it does begin to lay out, however, is a much larger discussion about online video. The discussion widens even further as supporters of alternative technologies and approaches like Silverlight, HTML5, and others begin to chime in with their thoughts on the current and future states of online video.

While each approach has its merits, all of the technology options just mentioned present challenges to the online video industry that may not be obvious right off the bat. One would think that having multiple technology options/platforms would be a good thing for businesses and consumers, and it is, but only when the market dynamics are right for it.</summary>
<author>
<name>guest</name>

<email>foremski@gmail.com</email>
</author>
<dc:subject>A Top Story</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/">
<![CDATA[<p>By Dave Stubenvoll, Co-founder and CEO of <a href="http://www.wowzamedia.com/">Wowza Media Systems</a>.</p>

<p>The recent introduction of Apple's iPad has re-opened discussion around Flash and Flash support, or rather, Apple devices' lack thereof. While this discussion brings to light the conflict between the two corporate agendas of Adobe and Apple, it isn't really about Flash or a methodology that Apple picked for video delivery. What it does begin to lay out, however, is a much larger discussion about online video. The discussion widens even further as supporters of alternative technologies and approaches like Silverlight, HTML5, and others begin to chime in with their thoughts on the current and future states of online video.</p>

<p>While each approach has its merits, all of the technology options just mentioned present challenges to the online video industry that may not be obvious right off the bat. One would think that having multiple technology options/platforms would be a good thing for businesses and consumers, and it is, but only when the market dynamics are right for it.</p>]]>
<![CDATA[<p>Fact of the matter is that businesses and organizations that want to stream video are forced to make tough decisions on which protocol and player technology to support since it's not economically feasible for most to embrace multiple platforms simultaneously. I'll get further into why this is the situation and how we got here, but first it'll be a good idea for me to share how I see markets evolving so there's some context from which to understand where the Internet video market is today.</p>

<p>My [over]simplified take on the classic evolution of a marketplace starts with a few select innovations grabbing an early foothold and over time segmenting the market into separate camps based on competing technology approaches. In the next phase, these opposing technologies eventually become democratized by some unifying technology or innovation that provides operational efficiency and creates cheaper and more advanced solutions, increased competition and greater opportunity for providers and broader choices for consumers.</p>

<p>Now take this concept of market evolution and apply it to the online video industry. Flash was the obvious winner in this space and for good reason - unlike Microsoft's Windows Media or Apple's QuickTime it didn't require a stand-alone player download and it provided a consistent in-the-browser playback experience, which led to the 98% penetration it now enjoys on the desktop. As the appetite for online video began to explode, other technologies made their way to prominence and the industry started tackling different challenges like delivering video to mobile users and creating a separate set of standards for wireless under the 3GP umbrella. Microsoft introduced Silverlight, a technology architected from scratch for video that is squarely targeting Flash. The iPhone's "full screen" viewing experience with a variant of HTML5 playback really started the video-capable smart phone movement. (Others could do video, but the iPhone made it decent.) </p>

<p>So now we've reached the point where there are competing technologies creating a fragmented market that is just getting itself off the ground. What I find interesting about the evolution of this market is the technologies that have helped us to get to this point. Today, we're in a market dominated by a few technologies that create opposing forces that actually limit the true potential of online video everywhere. The stage is set for democratizing solutions to come in and take things to the next level - that's where my company is, but it's not my intention make this about us. This is more about painting an accurate picture of how the dynamics in the online video market are driving this change. </p>

<p>Look at the historical crop of technologies and where they come from: Adobe, Microsoft, and Apple. None of these companies set out at the beginning with online video as their driving motivator. Adobe with Flash, Microsoft with Silverlight, and Apple with QuickTime and now HTTP streaming on the iPhone (and iPod/iPad) - each of these technologies is not necessarily intended for the greater good of online video, but rather for the advancement of specific corporate agendas. Adobe wants to sell design tools, Microsoft to promote various flavors of Windows OS, Apple to drive device sales and to lock up content within their own walled garden. So when you look at platforms like Flash Media Server and Windows Media Services/Internet Information Services (IIS) they're essentially loss leaders to help their companies achieve other objectives. Mind you, there's nothing wrong or inherently evil about any of this - it is the way of the world. We just need to recognize these are the forces that have shaped the fragmented environment we have here and now.</p>

<p>That is a Catch 22 for many content owners/creators, media companies, CDNs and other businesses that create and distribute online video. Today, these businesses must invest in separate technology infrastructures in order to reach each platform: one for Flash, one for Silverlight, one for Apple, etc. Addressing each format with individual technology investments is not a realistic game plan for deployment into the mainstream and the awaiting masses so eager for anytime, anywhere video. </p>

<p>The demand is there - just look at the growth statistics of online and mobile video consumption in any of Nielsen's recent Three Screen reports - but that's not to say that it's being adequately fulfilled. Simply translate the scenario above to the consumer world: if a content developer or a CDN can only afford to deliver in one format, then it forces consumers to go searching for content rather than it finding them. Case in point, if you want Hulu, Netflix Direct, etc, you're not going to get it on an iPad. In a perfect world, everyone on the media production and delivery side would be able to deliver video across all major streaming platforms, protocols and players. This means consumers would have content come to them wherever they are, rather than the other way around.</p>

<p>The market is in need of a new media delivery solution that unifies existing technologies (i.e. Flash, Silverlight), and makes them more accessible, more flexible, and more cost effective for the businesses that make their living creating and delivering online video to the masses.</p>

<p>Businesses need to be unsaddled from the burden of either relying on one media technology or over-extending themselves by investing in multiple technologies.</p>

<p>Consumers must have video content find them, rather than having to look for it themselves.</p>

<p>The solution will not come from the incumbents that own the major media platforms because that is not what drives their bottom line. The solution will come from companies whose only agenda is to solve the problems that are important to the value chain - content creators/owners, distribution, and the audience - by creating unified media delivery solutions capable of serving video from any codec, over any protocol, to any player.</p>

<p>Only then will the realization of a true Three Screen Vision be achieved.</p>

<p>- - -</p>

<p>As co-founder and CEO of Wowza Media Systems, Dave Stubenvoll is championing concepts and technologies powering the first truly unified media server. Prior to Wowza, he served as an Entrepreneur in Residence/Senior Director at Adobe Systems and previously managed mergers and acquisitions. Stubenvoll, who holds two patents, earned his BS in Mechanical Engineering from Clarkson University, his JD from Boston College and an MBA from the Carnegie Mellon Graduate School of Industrial Administration.</p>]]>
</content>
</entry>

<entry>
<title>Startups In LA... Building The West Coast Corridor Of Innovation - 1400 miles Long</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2010/03/startups_in_la.php" />
<modified>2010-03-19T17:06:58Z</modified>
<issued>2010-03-19T16:47:31Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.siliconvalleywatcher.com,2010://6.4114</id>
<created>2010-03-19T16:47:31Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">I caught up with Kieran Hannon the other day. He was in the Bay Area for a meeting with the Irish prime minister (he&apos;s on the board of Enterprise Ireland) and I realized it had been a good few years since I had last seen him. He used to be co-managing director of Grey Advertising, then had gone off to Texas to work as VP of Marketing for Radio Shack, and then moved to Santa Monica, in Southern California. He&apos;s now working as COO at a promising startup called Sidebar, which has an interesting mobile technology that recommends content based on what people like, very useful for online retailers and others.Kieran and his family had spent 18 years living in San Francisco, and I was curious what life in Southern California (SoCal) was like.He said life was good, and that the startup scene was healthy and that there are a lot of media/technology centers there. I often write about how Silicon Valley has become Media Valley, because of all the media companies here (Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Twitter, etc) so it makes sense that SoCal, with its rich media history, would be a fertile breeding ground for media technology startups.Earlier this week, Mark Suster, a VC based in SoCal, wrote an excellent post about startups in LA. Want to Start a Technology Company in LA?He makes some great points:...LA [is] the second largest city in the country with a population if 16 million. We have universities like Caltech, UCLA, USC and many more. We have many seasoned entrepreneurs who have built successful companies here and made a lot of money for investors and themselves. But LA is not Silicon Valley and we don&apos;t need to aspire to be so. We will never be Silicon Valley in the way that Toronto will never be Hollywood. But we have a great city for building technology companies.He goes into details about how LA is not like Silicon Valley.- Funding is different, there are smaller &quot;A&quot; rounds of around $3m rather than $10m here.- Recruiting is different. There aren&apos;t huge pools of engineers, but it is possible to build 100+ sized teams.- Commuting isn&apos;t as bad as people think it is, most people live close to where they work. And hey, commuting isn&apos;t that easy here.- Lots of content creation skills. This is an interesting point to make because software engineers can be found almost anywhere in the world today, but content creation skills are very culture specific, you can&apos;t outsource this work.- There are now larger numbers of successful entrepreneurs, many are on the their second and third successful company.Here are a few success stories:There is a lot of innovation happening in LA from places like Eqal, Deca.TV, DemandMedia&apos;s studios, Clicker, Filmaka and other initiatives. . . .The whole category of &quot;sponsored search&quot; came from a successful LA company, Overture. (my firm, GRP Partners, was an investor). LA produced Applied Semantics that created AdSense and was bought by Google. We were also an investor in the early local listing company, CitySearch - an LA company. LA was a leader in lead generation (LowerMyBills), comparison shopping (PriceGrabber, Shopzilla), social networking (MySpace ... I know, I know - Facebook won - but it was still a big business). If we extend a bit North up the coast line we have many affiliate marketing innovators including ValueClick, Commission Junction and FastClick. They also produced GoToMeeting and CallWave. . . .A great team from MySpace has created Gravity. Gil Elbaz from Applied Semantics has now created Factual. Zorik Gordon is tearing it up at ReachLocal. TechCoast Angels backed GreenDot should be a major IPO this year. Frank Addante has created Rubicon Project. Douglas Merrill, the former CIO of Google, is building his next company in LA. Scott Painter, founder of CarsDirect has created two new generation LA startups (Zag and TrueCar, both backed by GRP Partners). Brett Brewer (ex MySpace) has AdKnowledge, there is Adconian, Legal Zoom and many more. Hautelook, Gogii, Magento - all very high potential companies building in LA. Mr Suster is one of the organizers of Launchpad LA V2, which was announced today. This is a project aimed at helping first-time entrepreneurs and helping to educate them and guide them in building successful companies.We will be selecting 10 startup companies to participate. There is no cost but you must physically be based in or move to Los Angeles for the 6 months of the program. Applications are due April 6th, 2010, the form is on the website and the Twitter address is@launchpadladA West Coast corridor of innovation...It won&apos;t be long before we have a West Coast corridor of innovation stretching from Silicon Valley to Southern California, and beyond. In fact, if you fly from San Diego heading north along the coast you pass over tons of innovation centers:- The communications and biotech industries of San Diego; - The electronics industries of Orange County; - The media centers of Hollywood and Santa Monica;- Then you reach San Francisco/Silicon Valley with its electronics, software, media tech, biotech, cleantech industries; - Then Portland with its thriving startup scene plus Intel&apos;s big presence there; - Seattle with a thriving tech scene mostly spun out of Microsoft, and Amazon; - Vancouver and its software industry.Wow. 1400 miles of innovation. There&apos;s no other region like it, hundreds of miles of world-class, industry leading, innovation and creativity.Interestingly, it&apos;s all built on top of one of the most unstable fault lines in the world. A disruptive reality. Is there a connection?I&apos;ve always said that innovation has to be disruptive otherwise it&apos;s not innovation.</summary>
<author>
<name>foremski</name>
<url>http://www.SiliconValleyWatcher.com</url>
<email>tom@siliconvalleywatcher.com</email>
</author>
<dc:subject>Disruptive</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/">
<![CDATA[<p style="clear: both">I caught up with Kieran Hannon the other day. He was in the Bay Area for a meeting with the Irish prime minister (he's on the board of Enterprise Ireland) and I realized it had been a good few years since I had last seen him. </p><p style="clear: both">He used to be co-managing director of Grey Advertising, then had gone off to Texas to work as VP of Marketing for Radio Shack, and then moved to Santa Monica, in Southern California. He's now working as COO at a promising startup called <a href="http://sidebar.com/">Sidebar</a>, which has an interesting mobile technology that recommends content based on what people like, very useful for online retailers and others.</p><p style="clear: both">Kieran and his family had spent 18 years living in San Francisco, and I was curious what life in Southern California (SoCal) was like.</p><p style="clear: both">He said life was good, and that the startup scene was healthy and that there are a lot of media/technology centers there. I often write about how Silicon Valley has become Media Valley, because of all the media companies here (Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Twitter, etc) so it makes sense that SoCal, with its rich media history, would be a fertile breeding ground for media technology startups.</p><p style="clear: both">Earlier this week, Mark Suster, a VC based in SoCal, wrote an excellent post about startups in LA. <a href="http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2010/03/17/want-to-start-a-technology-company-in-la/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BothSidesOfTheTable+%28Both+Sides+of+the+Table%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo">Want to Start a Technology Company in LA?</a><u><br /></u></p><p style="clear: both">He makes some great points:</p><p style="clear: both">...LA [is] the second largest city in the country with a population if 16 million. We have universities like Caltech, UCLA, USC and many more. We have many seasoned entrepreneurs who have built successful companies here and made a lot of money for investors and themselves. But LA is not Silicon Valley and we don't need to aspire to be so. We will never be Silicon Valley in the way that Toronto will never be Hollywood. But we have a great city for building technology companies.</p><p style="clear: both">He goes into details about how LA is not like Silicon Valley.</p><p style="clear: both">- Funding is different, there are smaller "A" rounds of around $3m rather than $10m here.</p><p style="clear: both">- Recruiting is different. There aren't huge pools of engineers, but it is possible to build 100+ sized teams.</p><p style="clear: both">- Commuting isn't as bad as people think it is, most people live close to where they work. And hey, commuting isn't that easy here.</p><p style="clear: both">- Lots of content creation skills. This is an interesting point to make because software engineers can be found almost anywhere in the world today, but content creation skills are very culture specific, you can't outsource this work.</p><p style="clear: both">- There are now larger numbers of successful entrepreneurs, many are on the their second and third successful company.</p><p style="clear: both">Here are a few success stories:</p><blockquote style="clear: both"><p>There is a lot of innovation happening in LA from places like Eqal, Deca.TV, DemandMedia's studios, Clicker, Filmaka and other initiatives. <br />. . .<br />The whole category of "sponsored search" came from a successful LA company, Overture. (my firm, GRP Partners, was an investor). LA produced Applied Semantics that created AdSense and was bought by Google. We were also an investor in the early local listing company, CitySearch - an LA company. LA was a leader in lead generation (LowerMyBills), comparison shopping (PriceGrabber, Shopzilla), social networking (MySpace ... I know, I know - Facebook won - but it was still a big business). If we extend a bit North up the coast line we have many affiliate marketing innovators including ValueClick, Commission Junction and FastClick. They also produced GoToMeeting and CallWave. <br />. . .<br />A great team from MySpace has created Gravity. Gil Elbaz from Applied Semantics has now created Factual. Zorik Gordon is tearing it up at ReachLocal. TechCoast Angels backed GreenDot should be a major IPO this year. Frank Addante has created Rubicon Project. Douglas Merrill, the former CIO of Google, is building his next company in LA. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Painter" target="_blank">Scott Painter</a>, founder of CarsDirect has created two new generation LA startups (Zag and TrueCar, both backed by GRP Partners). Brett Brewer (ex MySpace) has AdKnowledge, there is Adconian, Legal Zoom and many more. Hautelook, Gogii, Magento - all very high potential companies building in LA. </p></blockquote><p style="clear: both">Mr Suster is one of the organizers of <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/18/los-angeles-mentorship-program-launchpad-la-opens-applications-for-its-second-session/" title="">Launchpad LA V2</a>, which was announced today. This is a project aimed at helping first-time entrepreneurs and helping to educate them and guide them in building successful companies.</p><blockquote style="clear: both"><p>We will be selecting 10 startup companies to participate. There is no cost but you must physically be based in or move to Los Angeles for the 6 months of the program. Applications are due April 6th, 2010, the form is on the <a href="http://www.launchpad.la/" target="_blank">website</a> and the Twitter address is<a href="http://www.twitter.com/launchpadla" target="_blank">@launchpadlad</a></p></blockquote><p style="clear: both"><br /><strong>A West Coast corridor of innovation...</strong></p><p style="clear: both">It won't be long before we have a West Coast corridor of innovation stretching from Silicon Valley to Southern California, and beyond. </p><p style="clear: both">In fact, if you fly from San Diego heading north along the coast you pass over tons of innovation centers:</p><p style="clear: both">- The communications and biotech industries of San Diego; </p><p style="clear: both">- The electronics industries of Orange County; </p><p style="clear: both">- The media centers of Hollywood and Santa Monica;</p><p style="clear: both">- Then you reach San Francisco/Silicon Valley with its electronics, software, media tech, biotech, cleantech industries; </p><p style="clear: both">- Then Portland with its thriving startup scene plus Intel's big presence there; </p><p style="clear: both">- Seattle with a thriving tech scene mostly spun out of Microsoft, and Amazon; </p><p style="clear: both">- Vancouver and its software industry.</p><p style="clear: both"><strong>Wow</strong>. 1400 miles of innovation. There's no other region like it, hundreds of miles of world-class, industry leading, innovation and creativity.</p><p style="clear: both">Interestingly, it's all built on top of one of the most unstable fault lines in the world. A disruptive reality. Is there a connection?</p><p style="clear: both">I've always said that innovation has to be disruptive otherwise it's not innovation.</p><p style="clear: both"></p><p style="clear: both"></p><br class='final-break' style='clear: both' />]]>

</content>
</entry>

<entry>
<title>Russia&apos;s Ultra-Rich Are Buying Up Newspapers - It&apos;s Not An Investment In Journalism But In Propaganda...</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2010/03/russias_ultra-r.php" />
<modified>2010-03-19T00:56:42Z</modified>
<issued>2010-03-19T00:56:40Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.siliconvalleywatcher.com,2010://6.4113</id>
<created>2010-03-19T00:56:40Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">Robert Andrews is puzzled. Why Are Russians Spending Like Mad To Save Journalism? | paidContent:UKHe writes:The latest - after last year buying France-Soir, the country’s smallest daily, for €50 million, shipbuilder’s son Alexander Pugachyov is now spending a further €20 million on a marketing campaign to take it mainstream. He’s upping the print run by 20 times, has halved the cover price and has more than doubled newsroom staff from 40 to 100. Jealous? There’s no part of this that makes immediate sense. In fact, contrasted with the cutbacks, climbdowns and contraction many parts of the industry are seeing, it looks like madness. ...The Pugachyov scenario in France mirrors that of Alexander Lebedev in the UK ... The former KGB agent took the London Evening Standard, whose circulation was falling, off DMGT’s hands for just a nominal fee, forewent cover-price income in favour of free distribution on a higher print run, and pledged a £25 million investment over three years.“£25 million investment??” That’s unheard of in today’s news publishing economy... Now Lebedev’s set to repeat the act by buying The Independent. I think I can help Mr Andrews understand what&apos;s going on. It has nothing to do with &quot;saving journalism.&quot;These are prominent publications in their country. They are being bought not to make money but as vehicles to influence politics and society. It&apos;s not the first time this has happened. Hearst used his newspapers for political influence, and many others have done the same.Investing in propaganda...The Russians, in particular, understand the power of media. At the heart of the Bolshevik party was its newspaper, Pravda. The Bolshevik party wasn&apos;t investing in journalism when it funded and published Pravda -- it was investing in having its ideas discussed in society, and in the political realm.These are ultra-rich individuals, they aren&apos;t buying the publications as investments in that business, but as an investment that will aid their other businesses. Mr Andrews notes that Alexander Pugachyov is the son of a Russian shipbuilder and that the French government may place an order for four battleships. I think that&apos;s a pretty big clue that the investment isn&apos;t about &quot;saving journalism.&quot;Media businesses are often loss-leaders that help drive other businesses. You see this today a lot. Most online media sites, especially blogs, don&apos;t make money from online advertising but from selling other things, such as services, or research reports, hosting events, etc. You don&apos;t make money directly from the traffic. - - -I already have a loss leader, I just need to add services and products that I can sell to help support my journalism. That&apos;s why I&apos;ve started to do some consulting for companies such as Intel, Pearltrees, SAP, and others.Let me know if you need some help on media/business strategies - 415 336 7547.</summary>
<author>
<name>foremski</name>
<url>http://www.SiliconValleyWatcher.com</url>
<email>tom@siliconvalleywatcher.com</email>
</author>
<dc:subject>MediaWatch</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/">
<![CDATA[<p style="clear: both"><a href="http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/pravda3.jpg" class="image-link"><img class="linked-to-original" src="http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/pravda3-thumb.jpg" height="501" width="380" style=" text-align: center; display: block; margin: 0 auto 10px;" /></a>Robert Andrews is puzzled. <a href="http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-why-are-russians-spending-like-mad-to-save-journalism/">Why Are Russians Spending Like Mad To Save Journalism? | paidContent:UK</a><u><br /></u></p><p style="clear: both">He writes:</p><blockquote style="clear: both"><p>The latest - after last year buying <a href="http://www.francesoir.fr/" title="France-Soir">France-Soir</a>, the country’s smallest daily, for €50 million, shipbuilder’s son Alexander Pugachyov is now spending a further €20 million on a marketing campaign to take it mainstream. He’s<strong> upping the print run by 20 times, has halved the cover price and has more than doubled newsroom staff from 40 to 100</strong>. <br /><br /><em>Jealous?</em> <strong>There’s no part of this that makes immediate sense</strong>. In fact, contrasted with the cutbacks, climbdowns and contraction many parts of the industry are seeing, it looks like madness. <br /><br />...<br /><br />The Pugachyov scenario in France mirrors that of Alexander Lebedev in the UK ... The former KGB agent <a href="http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-evening-standard-sold-to-former-kgb-spy-for-1/" title="took the London Evening Standard off DMGT's hands">took the London Evening Standard, whose circulation was falling, off DMGT’s hands</a> for just a nominal fee, forewent cover-price income in favour of free distribution on a higher print run, and <strong>pledged a £25 million investment over three years</strong>.<br /><br />“<em>£25 million investment??</em>” That’s unheard of in today’s news publishing economy... Now Lebedev’s set to repeat the act by buying The Independent. </p></blockquote><p style="clear: both">I think I can help Mr Andrews understand what's going on. It has nothing to do with "saving journalism."</p><p style="clear: both">These are prominent publications in their country. They are being bought not to make money but as vehicles to influence politics and society. </p><p style="clear: both">It's not the first time this has happened. Hearst used his newspapers for political influence, and many others have done the same.</p><p style="clear: both"><strong>Investing in propaganda...</strong></p><p style="clear: both">The Russians, in particular, understand the power of media. At the heart of the Bolshevik party was its newspaper, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravda">Pravda</a>. </p><p style="clear: both">The Bolshevik party wasn't investing in journalism when it funded and published Pravda -- it was investing in having its ideas discussed in society, and in the political realm.</p><p style="clear: both">These are ultra-rich individuals, they aren't buying the publications as investments in that business, but as an investment that will aid their other businesses. </p><p style="clear: both">Mr Andrews notes that Alexander Pugachyov is the son of a Russian shipbuilder and that the French government may place an order for four battleships. I think that's a pretty big clue that the investment isn't about "saving journalism."</p><p style="clear: both">Media businesses are often loss-leaders that help drive other businesses. You see this today a lot. Most online media sites, especially blogs, don't make money from online advertising but from selling other things, such as services, or research reports, hosting events, etc. You don't make money directly from the traffic. </p><p style="clear: both">- - -</p><p style="clear: both">I already have a loss leader, I just need to add services and products that I can sell to help support my journalism. That's why I've started to do some consulting for companies such as Intel, Pearltrees, SAP, and others.</p><p style="clear: both">Let me know if you need some help on media/business strategies - 415 336 7547.</p><br class='final-break' style='clear: both' />]]>

</content>
</entry>

<entry>
<title>Russians Announce Their Own &quot;Silicon Valley&quot; - And My Tiny Contribution...</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2010/03/russians_set_si.php" />
<modified>2010-03-18T19:56:29Z</modified>
<issued>2010-03-18T19:35:58Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.siliconvalleywatcher.com,2010://6.4112</id>
<created>2010-03-18T19:35:58Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">Reuters reports:President Dmitry Medvedev on Thursday announced that Russia would build a high-tech hub near Moscow to spur modernization of the economy and reduce its dependence on oil and gas. The center, designed to develop five priority sectors -- energy, IT, telecommunications, bio-medical and atomic technologies -- will be built near Skolkovo, a new private-sector business school in the Moscow region. (It would be tempting to call it &quot;Silicon Steppes&quot; if it were in Asiatic Russia...)I had a very small part to play in this story. In late 2007 I met with a large Russian delegation that had come over to Silicon Valley to learn some of its lessons. Their goal was to use Russian oil money to establish several Silicon Valley-like regions.They asked me lots of good questions. They made it clear that they did not want to replicate Silicon Valley, they wanted just the best bits.I told them I would tell them the secret of Silicon Valley&apos;s success. They went silent, and leaned in closer to hear what I had to say. &quot;Failure.&quot; (This was before the EPIC Fail craze of recent times...)Silicon Valley tolerates, and funds, massive amounts of failure. Only about one out of twenty startups succeed. Probably no other culture allows people to fail as many times as Silicon Valley. Inside every successful Silicon Valley entrepreneur is a failed entrepreneur. No other culture in the world, (except for maybe Las Vegas), tolerates and celebrates as much failure as Silicon Valley. This is the &quot;best bit&quot; of Silicon Valley, and its also the part that can&apos;t be exported. They nodded. And they made some notes.I asked them about how they would structure their VC funds, and about the Russian entrepreneurs that they hoped to attract.One of them, the head of a quasi public/private VC fund, said that they had a problem finding and funding startups. It was an exasperating problem. The Russian entrepreneurs won&apos;t tell them about their business ideas. They don&apos;t trust them. &quot;I&apos;m running a VC fund, I&apos;m not going to run off with their business idea!&quot;- - -By the way, did you know that Tim Draper, one of our most successful VCs, penned a song called &quot;RiskMaster&quot; to welcome the Russian delegation?I have no idea what the tune is, obviously something stirring, I can imagine something between Red Army choir and Welsh choir:Hey! You want to start a business? Russia seems to show some promise While weighing all your choices &quot;Go to Moscow!&quot; you hear voices Google founder came from Russia Parametric? - Not from Prussia! Genesis and PayPal too SVOD and what is new? With luck you&apos;ll become a Master! From Soviet biology Comes really cool technology Software immunology From Nukes we get ecology Ukraine&apos;s Orange Revolution Good for all-freedom solution And then political pollution Now it&apos;s all in execution Chorus: With luck you&apos;ll become a RiskMaster! All you need is a faster chip A million rubles A couple of engineers RiskMaster!- - -Please see: Turning Oil Into Innovation: Russian Delegation Seeks Silicon Valley&apos;s Lessons - SVW</summary>
<author>
<name>foremski</name>
<url>http://www.SiliconValleyWatcher.com</url>
<email>tom@siliconvalleywatcher.com</email>
</author>
<dc:subject>Silicon Valley</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/">
<![CDATA[<p style="clear: both">Reuters <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62H33S20100318">reports</a>:</p><blockquote style="clear: both"><p>President Dmitry Medvedev on Thursday announced that Russia would build a high-tech hub near Moscow to spur modernization of the economy and reduce its dependence on oil and gas. <br /><br />The center, designed to develop five priority sectors -- energy, IT, telecommunications, bio-medical and atomic technologies -- will be built near Skolkovo, a new private-sector business school in the Moscow region. </p></blockquote><p style="clear: both">(It would be tempting to call it "Silicon Steppes" if it were in Asiatic Russia...)</p><p style="clear: both">I had a very small part to play in this story. In late 2007 I met with a large Russian delegation that had come over to Silicon Valley to learn some of its lessons. Their goal was to use Russian oil money to establish several Silicon Valley-like regions.</p><p style="clear: both">They asked me lots of good questions. They made it clear that they did not want to replicate Silicon Valley, they wanted just the best bits.</p><p style="clear: both">I told them I would tell them the secret of Silicon Valley's success. They went silent, and leaned in closer to hear what I had to say. "Failure." </p><p style="clear: both">(This was before the EPIC Fail craze of recent times...)</p><p style="clear: both">Silicon Valley tolerates, and funds, massive amounts of failure. Only about one out of twenty startups succeed. </p><p style="clear: both">Probably no other culture allows people to fail as many times as Silicon Valley. Inside every successful Silicon Valley entrepreneur is a failed entrepreneur. </p><p style="clear: both">No other culture in the world, (except for maybe Las Vegas), tolerates and celebrates as much failure as Silicon Valley. This is the "best bit" of Silicon Valley, and its also the part that can't be exported. </p><p style="clear: both">They nodded. And they made some notes.</p><p style="clear: both">I asked them about how they would structure their VC funds, and about the Russian entrepreneurs that they hoped to attract.</p><p style="clear: both">One of them, the head of a quasi public/private VC fund, said that they had a problem finding and funding startups. It was an exasperating problem. The Russian entrepreneurs won't tell them about their business ideas. </p><p style="clear: both">They don't trust them. "I'm running a VC fund, I'm not going to run off with their business idea!"</p><p style="clear: both">- - -</p><p style="clear: both">By the way, did you know that Tim Draper, one of our most successful VCs, penned a song called "RiskMaster" to welcome the Russian delegation?</p><p style="clear: both">I have no idea what the tune is, obviously something stirring, I can imagine something between Red Army choir and Welsh choir:</p><p style="clear: both"><strong><em>Hey! You want to start a business? <br />Russia seems to show some promise <br />While weighing all your choices <br />"Go to Moscow!" you hear voices <br />Google founder came from Russia <br />Parametric? - Not from Prussia! <br />Genesis and PayPal too <br /><br />SVOD and what is new? <br />With luck you'll become a <br />Master! <br /><br />From Soviet biology <br />Comes really cool technology <br />Software immunology <br />From Nukes we get ecology <br />Ukraine's Orange Revolution <br />Good for all-freedom solution <br />And then political pollution <br />Now it's all in execution <br /><br /><br />Chorus: <br />With luck you'll become a <br />RiskMaster! <br /><br />All you need is a faster chip <br />A million rubles <br />A couple of engineers <br />RiskMaster!</em><br /></strong></p><p style="clear: both">- - -</p><p style="clear: both">Please see: <a href="http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2007/11/oiling_up_for_i.php">Turning Oil Into Innovation: Russian Delegation Seeks Silicon Valley's Lessons - SVW</a></p><br class='final-break' style='clear: both' />]]>

</content>
</entry>

<entry>
<title>Twitter&apos;s Future: Tyrant Or Benevolent King...</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2010/03/twitters_future.php" />
<modified>2010-03-18T18:47:30Z</modified>
<issued>2010-03-18T18:47:29Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.siliconvalleywatcher.com,2010://6.4111</id>
<created>2010-03-18T18:47:29Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">I recently wrote about Twitter&apos;s business model as ultimately enveloping ever greater parts of its developer community. [Twitter Is The Black Hole Of The Twitterverse...]After all, why leave money on the table? Why not produce the best desktop client, or mobile client? Why let others build lucrative businesses out of your community?That seemed to be the way things were moving for Twitter after one of its engineers Tweeted: &quot;If you had some of the nifty site features that we Twitter employees have, you might not want to use a desktop client. (You will soon.)&quot;Khris Loux, co-founder of JS-Kit Echo, a commenting service, writes that Twitter has a choice of being a tyrant, or a benevolent king.How Twitter Can Become A New Breed Of Technology Company | paidContentTwitter has an opportunity to create either value or angst for the developer community. The Twitter platform has led to countless third-party innovations, resulting in a rich set of applications that enhances the core platform. And Twitter has publicly encouraged these developers to join in the “gold rush” of opportunity and build businesses on its platform. Indeed, the staggering growth of the service and a healthy ecosystem of complimentary applications have made Twitter a sort of benevolent king. Now the hard part: building a business without becoming a tyrant. Twitter’s recent release of Twitter Lists, for example, undercuts the work of partners like TLists and shows the tightrope that Twitter (indeed all proprietary platforms) must walk to both grow their core platforms while also making sure that developers have an incentive to build on top of those platforms. Twitter’s failure to strike that balance could alienate a prime engine of its long-term value and growth. Well put. But where is that balance? How does it balance making money and letting others make money too? How much money is it appropriate to let others make from your platform? A young company such as Twitter, doesn&apos;t have the time to exploit all the business opportunities. That&apos;s why third-party developers have moved quickly to generate a plethora of Twitter apps: desktop clients such as Seesmic and Tweetdeck are two top examples.But why let others profit from your community?Twitter has investors, its management has a duty to maximize shareholder profits. And with each new round of investors, Twitter has to be able to promise new revenue growth.Where&apos;s that going to come from? It will come from looking at its developer community and seeing where the low hanging fruit is, where maximum bucks can be made from minimum development costs.Twitter can decide to buy a business or develop a look-a-like. That&apos;s a simple decision: cost to buy the business versus development costs and time-to-market.This is the way the way the world works, and it has nothing to do with being a tyrant or a benevolent king. If you have a profitable business you will attract competitors. If you have a successful Twitter apps business, if it&apos;s not Twitter coming after you, it will be other developers. If your business is small enough, it&apos;s probably not worth the development costs for Twitter to replicate it. So the message to developers is: don&apos;t make too much money from your Twitter apps otherwise your star will be sucked in and extinguished by the black hole at the center of the Twitterverse.</summary>
<author>
<name>foremski</name>
<url>http://www.SiliconValleyWatcher.com</url>
<email>tom@siliconvalleywatcher.com</email>
</author>
<dc:subject>Silicon Valley</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/">
<![CDATA[<p style="clear: both">I recently wrote about Twitter's business model as ultimately enveloping ever greater parts of its developer community. [<a href="http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2010/02/twitter_is_the.php">Twitter Is The Black Hole Of The Twitterverse...</a>]</p><p style="clear: both">After all, why leave money on the table? Why not produce the best desktop client, or mobile client? Why let others build lucrative businesses out of your community?</p><p style="clear: both">That seemed to be the way things were moving for Twitter after one of its engineers Tweeted: </p><p style="clear: both">"If you had some of the nifty site features that we Twitter employees have, you might not want to use a desktop client. (You will soon.)"</p><p style="clear: both">Khris Loux, co-founder of JS-Kit Echo, a commenting service, writes that Twitter has a choice of being a tyrant, or a benevolent king.</p><p style="clear: both"><a href="http://paidcontent.org/article/419-twitter-has-an-opportunity-to-create-a-radically-open-business-model-wi/">How Twitter Can Become A New Breed Of Technology Company | paidContent</a></p><blockquote style="clear: both"><p>Twitter has an opportunity to create either value or angst for the developer community. The Twitter platform has led to countless third-party innovations, resulting in a rich set of applications that enhances the core platform. And Twitter has publicly encouraged these developers to join in the “gold rush” of opportunity and build businesses on its platform. <br /><br />Indeed, the staggering growth of the service and a healthy ecosystem of complimentary applications have made Twitter a sort of benevolent king. <br /><br />Now the hard part: building a business without becoming a tyrant. <br /><br />Twitter’s recent release of Twitter Lists, for example, undercuts the work of partners like <a href="http://www.tlists.com/" title="TLists">TLists</a> and shows the tightrope that Twitter (indeed all proprietary platforms) must walk to both grow their core platforms while also making sure that developers have an incentive to build on top of those platforms. Twitter’s failure to strike that balance could alienate a prime engine of its long-term value and growth. </p></blockquote><p style="clear: both">Well put. But where is that balance? </p><p style="clear: both">How does it balance making money and letting others make money too? </p><p style="clear: both">How much money is it appropriate to let others make from your platform? </p><p style="clear: both">A young company such as Twitter, doesn't have the time to exploit all the business opportunities. That's why third-party developers have moved quickly to generate a plethora of Twitter apps: desktop clients such as Seesmic and Tweetdeck are two top examples.</p><p style="clear: both">But why let others profit from your community?</p><p style="clear: both">Twitter has investors, its management has a duty to maximize shareholder profits. And with each new round of investors, Twitter has to be able to promise new revenue growth.</p><p style="clear: both">Where's that going to come from? </p><p style="clear: both">It will come from looking at its developer community and seeing where the low hanging fruit is, where maximum bucks can be made from minimum development costs.</p><p style="clear: both">Twitter can decide to buy a business or develop a look-a-like. That's a simple decision: cost to buy the business versus development costs and time-to-market.</p><p style="clear: both">This is the way the way the world works, and it has nothing to do with being a tyrant or a benevolent king. </p><p style="clear: both">If you have a profitable business you will attract competitors. If you have a successful Twitter apps business, if it's not Twitter coming after you, it will be other developers. </p><p style="clear: both">If your business is small enough, it's probably not worth the development costs for Twitter to replicate it. </p><p style="clear: both">So the message to developers is: don't make too much money from your Twitter apps otherwise your star will be sucked in and extinguished by the black hole at the center of the Twitterverse.</p><p style="clear: both"></p><p style="clear: both"></p><br class='final-break' style='clear: both' />]]>

</content>
</entry>

<entry>
<title>Social Media Is Not About Conversations... It&apos;s About Something Much More Amazing</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2010/03/social_media_is.php" />
<modified>2010-03-18T04:49:16Z</modified>
<issued>2010-03-18T04:37:25Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.siliconvalleywatcher.com,2010://6.4110</id>
<created>2010-03-18T04:37:25Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">I was glad to see Joel Postman&apos;s post on his Socialized blog: Social Media Isn’t Conversation, It’s Publication because this has been a subject close to my heart.Joel writes:...I mentioned one of my favorite Marshall McLuhan quotations, “Publication is self-invasion of privacy.” We threw this idea around a little and together came up with the idea that online communications are a form of publication, not conversation, and a failure to understand this distinction can be troublesome...I agree, social media is about publishing, not conversations.About a year ago, I wrote about &quot;The Myth Of Online Conversations: Lots Of Chatter But Not Much DiscourseWhat is so striking about the online world is how little conversation takes place, how little two-way communication happens. One comment to an article is not a conversation. 300 comments on an article is not a conversation.Yet everyone talks about social media being about &quot;conversations.&quot; A PR firm I sometimes work with is called &quot;The Conversation Group.&quot;Social media is not about conversations it is about publishing. Social media represents the fact that we have now wired up the other end of the Internet, your end. The Internet enabled us to publish to any computer screen no matter where. Now, any screen can publish back. This is huge. That&apos;s what social media is about. It&apos;s about publishing, allowing anyone to publish back. It&apos;s feedback, it&apos;s a response, it&apos;s not a conversation.A printing press in your pocket...What is extraordinary, is not the &apos;conversational&apos; nature of the Internet, but the fact that now every screen is a printing press. I can publish from any screen, small or large, yours or mine. I have the equivalent of a printing press, with the potential to reach of tens of millions, in my pocket. And so do you.It&apos;s no wonder Rupert Murdoch is pissed. You used to have to be a media mogul to have a printing press.It&apos;s not the content...Let&apos;s not get distracted by the content, the endless Tweets about inane things, the blog posts about nothing-in-particular... The content is not the message. The message is that we now have an online printing press, (and TV studio, and radio studio) nearly anywhere, and everywhere we are. That&apos;s huge.Internet 1.0 was about being able to publish to anything with a computer screen. Now, anything with a screen can publish back. That&apos;s what social media represents...the &apos;me&apos; in media.We&apos;ve wired up the other end of the Internet. It&apos;s a two-way Internet now. This is the Internet on steroids.If you thought Internet 1.0 was amazing, you ain&apos;t seen nothing yet.</summary>
<author>
<name>foremski</name>
<url>http://www.SiliconValleyWatcher.com</url>
<email>tom@siliconvalleywatcher.com</email>
</author>
<dc:subject>MediaWatch</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/">
<![CDATA[<p style="clear: both">I was glad to see Joel Postman's post on his Socialized blog: <a href="http://www.socializedpr.com/social-media-isnt-conversation-its-publication/#comment-3341" title="">Social Media Isn’t Conversation, It’s Publication</a> because this has been a subject close to my heart.<u><br /></u></p><p style="clear: both">Joel writes:</p><blockquote style="clear: both"><p>...I mentioned one of my favorite <a href="http://www.marshallmcluhan.com/" target="_blank">Marshall McLuhan</a> quotations, “Publication is self-invasion of privacy.” We threw this idea around a little and together came up with the idea that online communications are a form of publication, not conversation, and a failure to understand this distinction can be troublesome...</p></blockquote><p style="clear: both">I agree, social media is about publishing, not conversations.</p><p style="clear: both">About a year ago, I wrote about "<a href="http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2009/04/the_myth_of_onl.php">The Myth Of Online Conversations: Lots Of Chatter But Not Much Discourse</a><u><br /></u></p><blockquote style="clear: both"><p>What is so striking about the online world is how little conversation takes place, how little two-way communication happens. <br /><br />One comment to an article is not a conversation. 300 comments on an article is not a conversation.</p></blockquote><p style="clear: both">Yet everyone talks about social media being about "conversations." A PR firm I sometimes work with is called "The Conversation Group."</p><p style="clear: both">Social media is not about conversations it is about publishing. </p><p style="clear: both">Social media represents the fact that we have now wired up the other end of the Internet, <em>your end</em>. </p><p style="clear: both">The Internet enabled us to publish to <em>any</em> computer screen no matter where. Now, any screen can publish back. This is huge. </p><p style="clear: both">That's what social media is about. It's about publishing, allowing anyone to publish back. It's feedback, it's a response, it's not a conversation.<br /><br /></p><p style="clear: both"><strong>A printing press in your pocket...</strong></p><p style="clear: both">What is extraordinary, is not the 'conversational' nature of the Internet, but the fact that now every screen is a printing press. </p><p style="clear: both">I can publish from any screen, small or large, yours or mine. I have the equivalent of a printing press, with the potential to reach of tens of millions, in my pocket. And so do you.</p><p style="clear: both">It's no wonder Rupert Murdoch is pissed. You used to have to be a media mogul to have a printing press.</p><p style="clear: both">I<strong>t's not the content...</strong></p><p style="clear: both">Let's not get distracted by the content, the endless Tweets about inane things, the blog posts about nothing-in-particular... </p><p style="clear: both">The content is not the message. The message is that we now have an online printing press, (and TV studio, and radio studio) nearly anywhere, and everywhere we are. That's huge.</p><p style="clear: both">Internet 1.0 was about being able to publish to anything with a computer screen. Now, anything with a screen can publish back. </p><p style="clear: both">That's what social media represents...the 'me' in media.</p><p style="clear: both">We've wired up the other end of the Internet. It's a two-way Internet now. This is the Internet on steroids.</p><p style="clear: both">If you thought Internet 1.0 was amazing, you ain't seen nothing yet.</p><p style="clear: both"><u><br /></u></p><br class='final-break' style='clear: both' />]]>

</content>
</entry>

<entry>
<title>Analysis: Google Is Building A Private Internet That&apos;s So Much Better And Greener Than The Internet</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2010/03/analysis_google_1.php" />
<modified>2010-03-17T23:47:48Z</modified>
<issued>2010-03-17T22:54:47Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.siliconvalleywatcher.com,2010://6.4109</id>
<created>2010-03-17T22:54:47Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain"><![CDATA[The Internet is huge but it's a hodgepodge of hundreds of thousands of smaller, private networks, connected through thousands of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and dozens of backbones operated by the large Telcos and service providers.Moving data from one end of the Internet to the other can mean traveling across many different computers and different networks. Some of these computers and networks are old and inefficient while some are modern and very efficient.They are all tied together into what we call the Internet, through a collection of standards. These standards determine how a packet of data can reach its destination, complete and undamaged.Many large Internet companies own large chunks of the Internet through building their own data centers, networks, backbones, etc. This helps to keep their costs down.Google is big...Google is one of those companies that owns a large chunk of the Internet. It has more than 50 data centers around the world; it builds its own servers; it operates its own backbones that shuttle huge amounts of data across the world; it develops its own software for managing all of its data; it keeps banks of servers in the data centers of ISPs so that it can cache data closer to delivery; and more, much more.How big is Google? asks Arbor Networks. It's a rhetorical question because Arbor knows, it sells network control and monitoring hardware used by the largest ISPs and corporations.Arbor says that Google is very big:I mean really big. If Google were an ISP, it would be the fastest growing and third largest global carrier. Only two other providers (both of whom carry significant volumes of Google transit) contribute more inter-domain traffic. But unlike most global carriers (i.e. the "tier1s"), Google's backbone does not deliver traffic on behalf of millions of subscribers nor thousands of regional networks and large enterprises. Google's infrastructure supports, well, only Google.Based on data from 110 ISPs collected in the summer of 2009, Google was responsible for as much as 10% of all Internet traffic.If a company wants to compete with Google on a large scale, the costs of shuttling data packets around, whether they be Twitter packets or video packets, starts becoming very important at these large scales. Arbor says: The competition between Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and other large content players has long since moved beyond just who has the better videos or search. The competition for Internet dominance is now as much about infrastructure -- raw data center computing power and about how efficiently (i.e. quickly and cheaply) you can deliver content to the consumer.And that's why Google has focused on building the most efficient, lowest cost to operate, private Internet. This infrastructure is key to Google, and it's key to understanding Google.The cost of aluminum...Google will locate its massive data centers where electricity costs are low, such as where there is hydro-electric power. There's a shortcut to finding these locations, look for places where there are aluminum smelters -- these use huge amounts of electricity.[Back in 2005 I was tipped off by a source that Google was looking at places for new data centers, related to aluminum smelters. But I was unable to write about it directly. I put the scoop in the form of a cryptic sentence and called it a "Crypto-Scoop."GOOG is prophetic, rather than superstitious, about its interest in places of power, associated with the 13th building block of the Original Design.(Aluminum is the 13th element in the periodic table - a fundamental building block of the Universe.) I have no idea if anyone worked it out :)]Power and computing costs...Google knew back then that electric power costs would be important in determining the cost of data centers. Today, it is high on the list of priorities for all data centers. That's also why it has been investing in power generating technologies, such as wind, sun, and geothermal. It has a key goal of generating electric power from renewable energy sources at a cost less than coal-generated electric power. That would be an incredible achievement.Always lower costs...Google always focuses on finding the lowest costs even though it can easily afford to pay more. Google builds its own servers, made from off-the-shelf low cost components, with cheap hard drives. It has developed its own software that deals with component failure and moves work loads across huge numbers of servers. Managing failure is built into Google's data center operating systems.It has bought up lots of "dark fiber," at a very low cost. This is optical fiber that hasn't yet been 'lit' but it is in the ground, in place, ready to be hooked up.Because Google has so much fiber, it operates one of the largest backbones in the world. It also means that it can trade bandwidth with others. Large Telcos and ISPs have peering arrangements with each other. This means that if they have the capacity, they will carry extra traffic for each other. These peering arrangements mean that Google's bandwidth bill for all that YouTube video is zero. It's difficult to believe, but your bandwidth bill to watch a YouTube video is more than Google's. Because of bartering through peering agreements, its only cost is in maintaining its own networks and backbones.Skipping the last mile...Google still needs ISPs and Telcos for the last mile, to deliver its various services and products, to the end user/consumer. But it has been experimenting with going direct. It has experimented with free municipal Wi-Fi, and more recently, it is setting up high speed bandwidth to communities with 500,000 people or less.This doesn't necessarily mean that Google wants to become an ISP or a Telco. It is not a service organization and it doesn't want that headache, but it does want to spur ISPs and Telcos to develop high-speed data connections, so that it can deliver future products and services that require high speed data.The Internet is becoming ever more Google's...Googles growth means that it is building a much faster, and much more power efficient, and much greener Internet. And through peering agreements, it is carrying much more than just Google traffic, it is quickly, and quietly becoming an important carrier for all Internet traffic. There are huge indirect benefits from Google's work that make the Internet a better service for every Internet user.Essential facility...What will this lead to? It's going to lead to regulatory scrutiny because Google will be increasingly seen as an 'essential facility' vital for the economies of regions, nations, and entire trading blocs. Increased scrutiny by governments, and regulatory bodies, will make it more difficult for Google to execute on its business strategies. Combined with the increased scrutiny of Google's acquisitions by the Federal Trade Commission, Google's future ambitions will become ever more restricted.Google sees the writing on the wall. It has boosted how much it spends on lobbying in Washington. [Antitrust Heat -- Google Spends Millions To Influence Washington - SVW]A layer cake business...Google might decide that its value lies in its incredibly efficient infrastructure, which is far more efficient and lower cost than the Internet as a whole. Once you have the lowest cost infrastructure, you can layer and scale other business services on top. Such as payment systems, basic voice and data services, security systems, and commerce platforms (advertising). Google might decide it doesn't need to own a Facebook, Twitter a Yahoo, or an Amazon -- when it can host all the data packets. It can carry and trace a data packet from source to destination and back again -- it can mine all that transactional data. That's extremely valuable.It's a little known fact that Google keeps all of its data, all transactional data. It erases part of the identifiable meta data, but that can be reconstructed. [Google Keeps Your Data Forever - Unlocking The Future Transparency Of Your Past - SVW]That transactional data is incredibly valuable, and even though we can't unlock it to its fullest value today, Google is working on it.No umbrella...By being able to build the most efficient, private Internet, Google makes it extremely difficult for any competitor to challenge it. There is no 'price umbrella' that competitors can use.For example, there used to be lots of mainframe computer companies because IBM, the largest mainframe computer maker, used to charge very high prices. There was a substantial price umbrella set by IBM that sheltered competitors, and allowed them to sell IBM compatible mainframes and still make a good living. You can see similar price umbrellas in other business sectors.Google has made sure that by building the most efficient, lowest cost infrastructure, there is no price umbrella that could be exploited by competitors. It's more like a manhole cover, try to get under it, and you fall into a hole...This strategy means that Google leaves money on the table, it could make more money over the short-term by creating a price umbrella. Instead, it has chosen a long term business strategy which doesn't give competitors any toehold, let alone an umbrella. Its stock ownership is set up so that founder's stock has ten times the voting rights of public shares, this allows it to avoid shareholder pressure to pursue short-term business goals. This all adds up to make Google into a truly formidable force, and one that continually amasses greater powers and influence. 'Do no evil' is the very least it can do. 
---

Please see my PearlTree on the 'Google Internet.' [PearlTrees is an SVW client and it's a great media technology that organizes web pages in a visual way.]

&nbsp;ptInitTree('pt-pearl-1_707929-282',1,9745,1,707929,1);&nbsp;

]]></summary>
<author>
<name>foremski</name>
<url>http://www.SiliconValleyWatcher.com</url>
<email>tom@siliconvalleywatcher.com</email>
</author>
<dc:subject>Disruptive</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/">
<![CDATA[<p style="clear: both">The Internet is huge but it's a hodgepodge of hundreds of thousands of smaller, private networks, connected through thousands of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and dozens of backbones operated by the large Telcos and service providers.</p><p style="clear: both">Moving data from one end of the Internet to the other can mean traveling across many different computers and different networks. Some of these computers and networks are old and inefficient while some are modern and very efficient.</p><p style="clear: both">They are all tied together into what we call the Internet, through a collection of standards. These standards determine how a packet of data can reach its destination, complete and undamaged.</p><p style="clear: both">Many large Internet companies own large chunks of the Internet through building their own data centers, networks, backbones, etc. This helps to keep their costs down.<br /><br /></p><p style="clear: both"><strong>Google is big...</strong></p><p style="clear: both">Google is one of those companies that owns a large chunk of the Internet. It has more than 50 data centers around the world; it builds its own servers; it operates its own backbones that shuttle huge amounts of data across the world; it develops its own software for managing all of its data; it keeps banks of servers in the data centers of ISPs so that it can cache data closer to delivery; and more, much more.</p><p style="clear: both"><a href="http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2010/03/how-big-is-google/">How big is Google?</a> asks Arbor Networks. It's a rhetorical question because Arbor knows, it sells network control and monitoring hardware used by the largest ISPs and corporations.</p><p style="clear: both">Arbor says that Google is very big:</p><blockquote style="clear: both"><p>I mean really big. If Google were an ISP, it would be the fastest growing and third largest global carrier. Only two other providers (both of whom carry significant volumes of Google transit) contribute more inter-domain traffic. But unlike most global carriers (i.e. the "tier1s"), Google's backbone does not deliver traffic on behalf of millions of subscribers nor thousands of regional networks and large enterprises. Google's infrastructure supports, well, only Google.</p></blockquote><p style="clear: both">Based on data from 110 ISPs collected in the summer of 2009, <strong>Google was responsible for as much as 10% of all Internet traffic.</strong></p><p style="clear: both">If a company wants to compete with Google on a large scale, the costs of shuttling data packets around, whether they be Twitter packets or video packets, starts becoming very important at these large scales. </p><p style="clear: both">Arbor says: </p><blockquote style="clear: both"><p>The competition between Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and other large content players has long since moved beyond just who has the better videos or search. The competition for Internet dominance is now as much about infrastructure -- raw data center computing power and about how efficiently (i.e. quickly and cheaply) you can deliver content to the consumer.</p></blockquote><p style="clear: both"><br />And that's why Google has focused on building the most efficient, lowest cost to operate, private Internet. This infrastructure is key to Google, and it's key to understanding Google.<br /><br /></p><p style="clear: both"><strong>The cost of aluminum...</strong></p><p style="clear: both">Google will locate its massive data centers where electricity costs are low, such as where there is hydro-electric power. There's a shortcut to finding these locations, look for places where there are aluminum smelters -- these use huge amounts of electricity.</p><p style="clear: both">[Back in 2005 I was tipped off by a source that Google was looking at places for new data centers, related to aluminum smelters. But I was unable to write about it directly. I put the scoop in the form of a cryptic sentence and called it a "Crypto-Scoop."</p><blockquote style="clear: both"><p>GOOG is prophetic, rather than superstitious, <br />about its interest in places of power, <br />associated with the 13th building block of the Original Design.</p></blockquote><p style="clear: both">(Aluminum is the 13th element in the periodic table - a fundamental building block of the Universe.) I have no idea if anyone worked it out :)]<br /><br /></p><p style="clear: both"><strong>Power and computing costs...</strong></p><p style="clear: both">Google knew back then that electric power costs would be important in determining the cost of data centers. Today, it is high on the list of priorities for all data centers. That's also why it has been <a href="http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/pressrel/20071127_green.html">investing</a> in power generating technologies, such as wind, sun, and geothermal. </p><p style="clear: both">It has a key goal of generating electric power from renewable energy sources <em>at a cost less than coal-generated electric power</em>. That would be an incredible achievement.<br /><br /></p><p style="clear: both"><strong>Always lower costs...</strong></p><p style="clear: both">Google always focuses on finding the lowest costs even though it can easily afford to pay more. Google builds its own servers, made from off-the-shelf low cost components, with cheap hard drives. It has developed its own software that deals with component failure and moves work loads across huge numbers of servers. Managing failure is built into Google's data center operating systems.</p><p style="clear: both">It has <a href="http://www.voip-news.com/feature/google-dark-fiber-050707/" title="">bought</a> up lots of "dark fiber," at a very low cost. This is optical fiber that hasn't yet been 'lit' but it is in the ground, in place, ready to be hooked up.</p><p style="clear: both">Because Google has so much fiber, it operates one of the largest backbones in the world. It also means that it can <a href="http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=107080">trade bandwidth</a> with others. </p><p style="clear: both">Large Telcos and ISPs have peering arrangements with each other. This means that if they have the capacity, they will carry extra traffic for each other. These peering arrangements mean that Google's bandwidth bill for all that YouTube video is <strong>zero</strong>. </p><p style="clear: both">It's difficult to believe, but your bandwidth bill to watch a YouTube video is more than Google's. Because of bartering through peering agreements, its only cost is in maintaining its own networks and backbones.</p><p style="clear: both"></p><p style="clear: both"><strong>Skipping the last mile...</strong></p><p style="clear: both">Google still needs ISPs and Telcos for the last mile, to deliver its various services and products, to the end user/consumer. But it has been experimenting with going direct. </p><p style="clear: both">It has experimented with free municipal Wi-Fi, and more recently, it is <a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/think-big-with-gig-our-experimental.html">setting up high speed bandwidth</a> to communities with 500,000 people or less.</p><p style="clear: both">This doesn't necessarily mean that Google wants to become an ISP or a Telco. It is not a service organization and it doesn't want that headache, but it does want to spur ISPs and Telcos to develop high-speed data connections, so that it can deliver future products and services that require high speed data.<br /><br /></p><p style="clear: both"><strong>The Internet is becoming ever more Google's...</strong></p><p style="clear: both">Googles growth means that it is building a much faster, and much more power efficient, and much greener Internet. And through peering agreements, it is carrying much more than just Google traffic, it is quickly, and quietly becoming an important carrier for <em>all</em> Internet traffic. </p><p style="clear: both">There are huge indirect benefits from Google's work that make the Internet a better service for every Internet user.<br /><br /></p><p style="clear: both"><strong>Essential facility...</strong></p><p style="clear: both">What will this lead to? It's going to lead to regulatory scrutiny because Google will be increasingly seen as an 'essential facility' vital for the economies of regions, nations, and entire trading blocs. </p><p style="clear: both">Increased scrutiny by governments, and regulatory bodies, will make it more difficult for Google to execute on its business strategies. Combined with the increased scrutiny of Google's acquisitions by the Federal Trade Commission, Google's future ambitions will become ever more restricted.</p><p style="clear: both">Google sees the writing on the wall. It has boosted how much it spends on lobbying in Washington. [<a href="http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2010/01/antitrust_heat.php">Antitrust Heat -- Google Spends Millions To Influence Washington - SVW</a>]<br /><br /></p><p style="clear: both"><strong>A layer cake business...</strong></p><p style="clear: both">Google might decide that its value lies in its incredibly efficient infrastructure, which is far more efficient and lower cost than the Internet as a whole. </p><p style="clear: both">Once you have the lowest cost infrastructure, you can layer and scale other business services on top. Such as payment systems, basic voice and data services, security systems, and commerce platforms (advertising). </p><p style="clear: both">Google might decide it doesn't need to own a Facebook, Twitter a Yahoo, or an Amazon -- when it can host all the data packets. It can carry and trace a data packet from source to destination and back again -- it can mine all that transactional data. That's extremely valuable.</p><p style="clear: both">It's a little known fact that Google keeps all of its data, all transactional data. It erases part of the identifiable meta data, but that can be reconstructed. [<a href="http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2010/03/google_keeps_yo.php">Google Keeps Your Data Forever - Unlocking The Future Transparency Of Your Past - SVW</a>]</p><p style="clear: both">That transactional data is incredibly valuable, and even though we can't unlock it to its fullest value today, Google is working on it.<br /><br /></p><p style="clear: both"><strong>No umbrella...</strong></p><p style="clear: both">By being able to build the most efficient, private Internet, Google makes it extremely difficult for any competitor to challenge it. There is no 'price umbrella' that competitors can use.</p><p style="clear: both">For example, there used to be lots of mainframe computer companies because IBM, the largest mainframe computer maker, used to charge very high prices. There was a substantial price umbrella set by IBM that sheltered competitors, and allowed them to sell IBM compatible mainframes and still make a good living. </p><p style="clear: both">You can see similar price umbrellas in other business sectors.</p><p style="clear: both">Google has made sure that by building the most efficient, lowest cost infrastructure, there is no price umbrella that could be exploited by competitors. It's more like a manhole cover, try to get under it, and you fall into a hole...</p><p style="clear: both">This strategy means that Google leaves money on the table, it could make more money over the short-term by creating a price umbrella. Instead, it has chosen a long term business strategy which doesn't give competitors any toehold, let alone an umbrella. </p><p style="clear: both">Its stock ownership is set up so that founder's stock has ten times the voting rights of public shares, this allows it to avoid shareholder pressure to pursue short-term business goals. </p><p style="clear: both">This all adds up to make Google into a truly formidable force, and one that continually amasses greater powers and influence. 'Do no evil' is the very least it can do. </p>
<p>---</p>

<p>Please see my PearlTree on the 'Google Internet.' [PearlTrees is an SVW client and it's a great media technology that organizes web pages in a visual way.]</p>

<p>&nbsp;<span><a title="click here to see: Google Internet" href="http://www.pearltrees.com/foremski/4319152/" id="pt-pearl-1_707929-282" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.pearltrees.com/s/embed/masked?treeID=707929" style="border:none;vertical-align:top;" alt="Google Internet" /></a><script src="http://www.pearltrees.com/embed/pt-embed.js" type="text/javascript"></script><script type="text/javascript">ptInitTree('pt-pearl-1_707929-282',1,9745,1,707929,1);</script></span>&nbsp;</p>

<br class='final-break' style='clear: both' />]]>

</content>
</entry>

<entry>
<title>Tech Giants Struggle With Copy And Paste...</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2010/03/tech_giants_str.php" />
<modified>2010-03-17T07:06:25Z</modified>
<issued>2010-03-17T07:01:14Z</issued>
<id>tag:www.siliconvalleywatcher.com,2010://6.4108</id>
<created>2010-03-17T07:01:14Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">It was two years before the iPhone got copy and paste functions. Now, Microsoft says that its Windows Phone 7 Series, won&apos;t have copy and paste when it becomes available later this year.Engadget reported:Microsoft just mentioned in a Q&amp;A session here at MIX10 in no uncertain terms that clipboard operations won&apos;t be supported on Windows Phone 7 SeriesAnd:Update: We just super-double-ultra-plus-confirmed this with Microsoft -- Windows Phone 7 Series will not have copy and paste functionality. There is a data-detection service built into the text-handling API that will recognize phone numbers and addresses, but Microsoft says most users, including Office users, don&apos;t really need clipboard functionality. We... respectfully disagree?I agree with Engadget. Copy and paste makes life a lot easier, it saves having to rekey data from one application on the phone, to another. Apple first ran into problems, and now Microsoft. It could take years before it&apos;s added to Windows Phone, says Engadget. Copy and paste must be a very difficult technical problem on smart phones, and I have to admit, that I don&apos;t understand the scale of this problem. Microsoft said it plans to spend $9.5 billion on research and development this year, which is $3 billion more than its closest rivals. I hope a few billion dollars of that budget goes on solving the copy and paste problem. Microsoft could gain a significant lead over Apple.</summary>
<author>
<name>foremski</name>
<url>http://www.SiliconValleyWatcher.com</url>
<email>tom@siliconvalleywatcher.com</email>
</author>
<dc:subject>TrendWatch</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/">
<![CDATA[<p style="clear: both">It was two years before the iPhone got copy and paste functions. Now, Microsoft says that its Windows Phone 7 Series, won't have copy and paste when it becomes available later this year.</p><p style="clear: both">Engadget <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/16/windows-phone-7-series-wont-have-copy-and-paste/">reported</a>:</p><blockquote style="clear: both"><p>Microsoft just mentioned in a Q&A session here at <a href="http://www.engadget.com/tag/MIX10/">MIX10</a> in no uncertain terms that clipboard operations won't be supported on Windows Phone 7 Series</p></blockquote><p style="clear: both">And:</p><blockquote style="clear: both"><p><strong>Update:</strong> We just super-double-ultra-plus-confirmed this with Microsoft -- Windows Phone 7 Series will not have copy and paste functionality. There is a data-detection service built into the text-handling API that will recognize phone numbers and addresses, but Microsoft says most users, including Office users, don't really need clipboard functionality. We... respectfully disagree?</p></blockquote><p style="clear: both">I agree with Engadget. Copy and paste makes life a lot easier, it saves having to rekey data from one application on the phone, to another. </p><p style="clear: both">Apple first ran into problems, and now Microsoft. It could take years before it's added to Windows Phone, says Engadget. </p><p style="clear: both">Copy and paste must be a very difficult technical problem on smart phones, and I have to admit, that I don't understand the scale of this problem. </p><p style="clear: both">Microsoft said it plans to spend $9.5 billion on research and development this year, which is $3 billion more than its closest rivals. I hope a few billion dollars of that budget goes on solving the copy and paste problem. Microsoft could gain a significant lead over Apple.</p><br class='final-break' style='clear: both' />]]>

</content>
</entry>

</feed>
