The Genocide in Darfur – Blog Awareness Campaign

The folks at Degardener have initiated a blog-awareness campaign, to increase awareness of the genocide taking place in Darfur (Sudan).

The campaign calls for each post to be signed-off with this sentence: “Moreover, I advise that the genocide in Darfur must be stopped”.

I know there are plenty of cynics out there who would surely point out that

(a) the web is a poor vehicle for effecting policy and social change at the macro-level (as opposed to focused micro-level campaigns) and that

 (b) this type of involvement allows us to easily feel “we’re doing something” without taking to the streets or applying more effective methods to protest or to call for change (such as writing your Congressman)-  it makes us “feel good” while at the same time further weakening the more effective democratic process (you can read more about how these “do good” initiatives actually serve to make us complacent in David Harvey’s seminal book A Brief History of Neoliberalism) .

But this is really not the case here.  In the case of the Darfur genocide the biggest problem is ignorance.  This is about awareness, as a first step towards action.  Most people in the West have no idea where Darfur is, what is this all about, and why they should be doing something about it.

The genocide in Darfur is a tough story to “sell”.  It is taking place on a continent which has long been neglected in the media, it involves people who have no political or economic clout (no oil, no “war on terror”) and its misery is entirely hidden from mainstream media consumers.

With that in mind, I think the Web is a strong vehicle for increasing awareness, especially if we harness the power of our social networks.  I do not expect this to be “effective”, but I do see it as a small step towards raising awareness, and perhaps towards getting more people thinking about this issue, and taking some form of action.

Moreover, I advise that the genocide in Darfur must be stopped.

— Oren

Web 2.0 Expo – Are We There Yet?

I finally got back from Web2.0 Expo in SF.  It was one of those events which attract all sorts of exhibitors, attendees and speakers.  With more than 10,000 attendees (rumor has it at 16,000), it was packed (to the point where, as always, the wireless network was a joke).

 My personal experience at the Expo was mixed.  I spent most of the time at the expo-hall, mingling and talking to exhibitors and attendees.

If the exhibitors reflect existing/upcoming trends, then overall the message is, well, grim.  Of the +100 exhibitors at the conference, I only found a handful few to be exciting and innovative.  As one was cruising from one booth to the next, a feeling “me too” was in the air.  In many cases, when I asked “how are you different from that guy across the hall?”, the reply was “we are better”.  Hmm.

Trend-wise, there were several companies built around mash-up/API/data-extraction tools and services.  From the simple to the complex, from the smallest start up to AOL/MSFT/IBM.  My favorite one in that group is Dapper.  It is so simple to use, it makes some of the more “developer-oriented” solutions seem old and clunky.

Then we had the enterprise wiki companies.  Lots of them.  All were peddling, well, wikis.  Not much differentiation there, no matter what they say.

And of course, social networks.  In all shapes and colors.

Many of the exhibitors were very early stage, to the point where it was unclear to me (and to them) what their conference goals were.  When asked “what are you looking to achieve here” they could not come up with an answer.  Considering how much it costs to participate in one of these events, this is definitely odd (and something their investors should be worried about).

Others could not answer the “what is your business model” question, always going back to features and technology.   Call me a traditionalist, but where I come from (telecom), business models are somewhat important.  Look at it this way – am I likely to incorporate into my application some 3rd party service which has no business model (here today, gone tomorrow)?

Don’t get me wrong, there were some great products and services out there, but I did not sense real excitement.  In most cases it was a clear case of a pure Insider play – Web2.0 companies pitching to other Web2.0 fans, with very few ideas that can become main-stream.

Some of the companies/products I really liked:

Etelos - wow, they made a huge splash.  Applications, development, enterprise. 

G.ho.st - Very cool virtual computer service, one which utilizes Amazon’s S3 storage service.  And it’s an Israeli/Palestinian company, something you don’t see much these days (or ever).

Zude - They’re not an exhibitor, but I did run into their CTO/founder.  Just go to the site.  It defies easy definition.  Going live next month, but lots of info on the site.  Check out ZDNet coverage.

All in all, this was a “business as usual” type event.  Which probably bodes well to the Web2.0 industry as a whole.  See you next time around!

— Oren

p.s.:  Conference presentations (some of them) should be made available, over time, here.

Web 2.0 Expo – Nokia S60 Widgets – Are we making any progress?

Nokia announced its S60 Widget platform – Web Runtime at the Web2.0 Expo yesterday.  I attended their presentation, which was given by a marketing person.

 When you do away with the hype and the (really) cool demos, what you end up with is this:

- Users (who must have up-to-date S60 phones) can download “widgets” to their phones,

- These widgets deliver “point” solutions for specific use cases (weather, ebay, etc.).

Hmm… let me see… if we use the term “application” instead of “widget”, we end up with this model:  User downloads application to his phone, and uses it to access web-based information.

Wow!  True innovation.   Not. 

Can anyones say “Java apps”?  The Nokia presenter failed to explain why adoption would be higher for “widgets” than for “applications”.   The fact is that most users simply do not download/install stuff on their phones.

The presenter also used some (IMHO) misleading stats to enhance the appeal of the solution.  Even though it targets only S60 devices, which currently command a very low market share, Nokia used stats which show global mobile phone penetration (billions of devices).  When challenged by the audience, the presented acknowledged that the stats were irrelevant for the topic at hand.

Worst, the presenter acknowledged (only when asked) that even current S60 phones will not be able to support this new functionality (which has not yet been launched, and is still in beta). 

In other words, no one, right now, can use S60 widgets.

The pitch at Web2.0 Expo was clearly for developers – attracting widget developers in order to enhance the value of the S60 OS.  But attracting developers will depend on commercial availability, marketing channels, business models and adoption rates.  On all these issues Nokia is silent.

What is the role of the carrier in the seemingly open S60 widget world?  We don’t know.

What are the expected business models?  We don’t know.

How will it be any different than the Java model?  We don’t know.

Finally, a comment for presenters:  Sometimes more is less.  The Nokia presenter joked that “…I’m surprised – I just went through for demo examples, and nothing went wrong…”.  One of the first questions that came up had to do with the stability of the new technology – “…why were you surprised?  Did you expect anything to go wrong?…”

— Oren

Would you have funded Columbus?

I have just finished reading Daniel Boorstin’s classic book – The Discoverers.  I strongly recommend it to anyone who is interested in a well-written and well-structured survey of scientific thought and progress throughout the ages.  Boorstin’s book focuses on those key individuals who have brought about scientific progress in all branches of science, from geography to psychology.

At the same time, Guy Kawasaki has recently posted an entry on how to attract a VC’s attention.  It continues Guy’s posts on the interaction between entrepreneurs and VCs.  I find Guy’s post to be very relevant to Boorstin’s book.

With each passing generation we seem to consider VCs as an institution grounded in the present.  For example, few recall that it was VCs who launched the PC revolution (with the funding of Apple Computers way back when in the 70’s).

But VCs (and VC-like institutions) existed long before modern technology.  Take Columbus’s story for example.  Here is an entrepreneur who is trying to get funding for his start up:  To discover the western passage to the Far East.  His powerpoint presentation is a collection of new and ancient maps and manuscripts.  His business model is based on being able to provide a more stable, more profitable supply chain for goods from the Orient (vs. using obscure land routes to get there). 

The VCs in question are the rulers of western Europe – Portugal, Spain, Italy, and the city-states.  The pitch is clearly VC in nature – “you invest in my venture and in return you get a piece of the action”.  This is very different from the bankers’ approach (rich Venice merchants) – “you loan me the money, I get rich, I repay the loan + interest”.

It took Columbus 7 years to get the funding he was after.  For one thing, he was pitching his plan at a time when someone else was already providing a solution to the same problem.  In 1488 Bartolomeu Dias was the first European to round the Cape of Good Hope in Africa, proving that it was an eastern sea passage from Europe to the Orient.  In fact, Columbus was just about to get funded by the kind of Portugal, when Dias sailed back from his journey and disclosed the news.  Columbus was promptly turned away.

Taking advantage of the competitive market in which he was operating (with European states competing for trade routes) Columbus pitched his idea to the Spanish royals, eventually getting the funding he was looking for.  His contract with his investors sounds surprisingly familiar:  A profit sharing agreement, with the financiers owning parts of the deal.

Columbus was an entrepreneur, but, as Boorstin points out, not an innovator.  He did the right thing for all the wrong reasons.  His ideas were very conservative, as were his sources.  He got most of his facts wrong (to the end of his life he was still claiming to have reached the Orient).  In fact, it turns out Columbus got lucky – he had managed to find what turned out to be the only good navigable route between Europe and the New World.  Years later, navigators would still use the same route.  Regardless though, it is Columbus’s drive and focus, coupled with his leadership skills, that enabled him to exploit his (accidental) discovery.

Yet another similarity comes to mind between Columbus’s venture and today’s start ups.  Columbus was totally ignorant of the magnitude of his discovery.  It would take others to figure out that he had in fact discovered a new continent.  It would take years before the full impact of his venture would be realized.  This is not unlike the modern PC/software/web revolutions, where value is created in ways unimagined by the original innovators.  Think WWW, HTML, TCP/IP, open source, mobile communications, Web2.0 and so on.  It is interesting to consider what would our world be like today if funding was not available for such endeavours.

So, would you (or Guy Kawasaki for that matter) have funded Columbus?

— Oren

Blog vs. Reality – why I won’t tell you about my recent trips

I’d like to write all about the wonderful meetings I’ve had in recent weeks.  I’ve been to San Francisco (twice), Toronto, Montreal and of course downtown Vancouver.  I’ve met wonderful people from many different companies and industries – potential partners, advisers, prospects, investors, etc.

I actually started compiling some of my notes, to share with you all the good stuff that’s out there.  But somehow, in between NDAs and public company disclosure rules, I realized I can’t really discuss any of it.  Which kind of defeats the purpose of having a blog.

So without naming names – it was a pleasure meeting you all (you know who you are).  Until next time.

— Oren

Tools of the Trade

In the process of developing our new service we are morphing from a traditional telecom software company to a more agile web/services focused organization.

We’ve introduced our own version of extreme programming, a move which required us to adopt new processes and new tools for managing the product life-cycle.

Internally we are now working on multiple small projects.  Each project consists of a focused feature set, and a master project coordinates the various sets.  Instead of using goold old Microsoft Project, we are now using 37Signal’s Basecamp as our primary project management system.

Wonderfully simple, Basecamp enables us to quickly set up projects, monitor progress, and share information.  We have recently started using it to share project information with external business partners.  We use writerboards to make sure everyone – from marketing to R&D to QA and support – knows what the shared vision is.

Whereas Basecamp is used for project tracking, task management and milestone management, most of the information we put in the system is in the form of references to either our bug/feature tracking system (phpBugTracker) or to our internal Wiki (PmWiki).  This ensures that we don’t duplicate information across the various systems, and that we keep critical information in-house.

The combination of Basecamp, BugTracker and PmWiki gives us the flexibility we need in terms of sharing the right informatino with the right stakeholders.  Management, marketing and R&D each have their own information sources, with overlapping interfaces.   This enables everyone in the company to know exactly what is happening and what the next steps are.

For marketing/management we have started using a mind mapping service – Mindomo .  Using mind maps we can easily capture concepts, ideas and relationships.  Since we are starting with a brand new service offering, there are many directions in which the service may evolve.  This is not only true on the feature/technical side, but also on the positioning and business development side.  A mind map enables us to capture the various options and directions, and later on to chart the course we want to take.

Essentially, all ideas get captured in the mind map.  They can be traced to their origin, and can also be inter-connected to other points on the map.  We also use the mind map to track and identify potential partners and customers, and to related business development, marketing, and technical activities – which partner requires which feature set, which sales opportunities will be enabled by developing certain items, etc.

I find mind maps quite addictive in their simplicity.  No useful idea gets lost, and at the same time I can get an accurate snapshot of “where we are”.

It is quite amazing to consider that just a few years ago your software and product management tool choices were limited, expensive and time consuming.  Today we are using one paid-for SaaS tool (Basecamp), one free SaaS (Mindomo) and two open source in-house tools (PmWiki and BugTracker).  On their own they are good low cost solutions.  Together, they are a company-changing toolset, delivering exceptional value and easily supporting our new initiatives.

— Oren

Long time no Blog

I’ve been neglecting my blog (and my readers) lately.  Too much travel, to little time. 

In recent weeks I’ve been to San Francisco (twice), Toronto and Montreal.  Too many meetings to recount.  It was raining non-stop in Vancouver for almost two weeks, which made sunny SF even more welcoming. 

 Contec has started releasing information about our new project (see our latest news release).  Personally it means I am busier than usual (if at all possible). 

Once last thing – check out the “mobilize me” feature on my blog – read this blog on your mobile, no registration or download required.  I’m playing with this feature, and would appreciate any comment / bug report, especially from my overseas readers.

P.S.

Vancouver may be rainy, but at least we get free WiFi in our coffee shops, as opposed to the T-Mo monopoly in SF…

 — Oren