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

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

Mobile Internet As it Should Be

This morning I went shopping with my wife.  I stayed with one sleeping child in the car while she took the other to the store. 

Not much you can do in the car with a sleeping child.  Certainly cannot play music or listen to the radio.  Instead, I flipped open my mobile (a humble non-smartphone with nothing more than your average mobile browser on it) and did some blog-reading catching up.

I read the latest posts on Degardener.  When I was reading this post I noticed it referred to a LinkedIn Group.  Being a LinkedIn junkie I immediately followed the link on my mobile browser.  After logging in to LI, I added myself to the group.

By the time I got back home, I was a group member, and had already received several invitations to link from other members.

Bottom line:  I used the Internet on my mobile while I was in a mobile context – nothing to do, no other connectivity.  The experience was exceptional (EVDO + some of my company’s secret sauce), enabling me to consume content and to act on it in a meaningful way.

As a user experience it was a matter of serendipity meets usability (from useless to useful).

Now I have to check out my new LinkedIn buddies

— Oren

Rock bands & Start-ups – My 2 Cents

My entrepreneur friend Aner Ravon and my VC friend Daniel Cohen have been debating the interesting issue of comparing rock bands and start-up companies.  You can read the original post here, Daniel’s comment here and Aner’s rebuttal here.

I would like to suggest another point of view.  Both rock artists and start-ups can be described as players in creative industries.  Professor Richard Caves, in his book Creative Industries: Contracts between Art and Commerce provides a good analysis of creative industries (music, film, theatre, and by extension, software development). 

I won’t delve into the entire model (read the book!), but there is a lot more in common between rock artists in start-up companies than meets the eye:

First, both operate in areas of high uncertainty.  Most rock artists fail.  Most start-ups fail.  Both cannot predict whether they will be successful or not.  In both cases, past success does not imply future success.  Only with hindsight can we explain why some succeed and others fail.  This “we don’t know” problem underlies the interactions between all players in the industry.  It is about sharing risk, shifting risk, minimizing risk, hedging your bets and so on.

Second, there is a lot more supply than demand.  Lots of people out there would like to be rock stars.  Lots of bands will play anywhere, any time, for free, to get some exposure.  The same is true for start-ups.

Third, creative industries are built around gate-keepers, which are the focal points for the players in the industry.  Whether they are agents, music companies, book editors or VCs, they are the ones who control the balance of supply and demand. 

Fourth, a few players will realize abnormal returns.   A few start-ups will be sold for millions, and some artists will become filthy rich.  But the key driver for both is typically not the financial gain, but the creative process.  Artists need to create art for art’s sake, entrepreneurs need to innovate.  Nowhere is this more relevant than in the post-Web2.0 world where many can unleash their creativeness on the unsuspecting masses.

Fifth, and my favorite attribute, is the struggle between perfection and the need to address customer needs and stick to the budget.  Both artists and software developers would like to deliver “the perfect” product.  This is why directors typically exceed their budgets and why product companies tend to push schedules (and budgets).  Both the rock band and the start-up need to constrain their creative urge by taking into account release dates, commitments, commercial needs and tastes, and so on.  Whereas artists talk about “selling their soul” to the “commercial market”, start-up often describe their VC (and sometimes their customer) engagements in similar terms

There is a lot more to it (read the book!), but I hope that by now you’ll agree that conceptually rock bands and start-ups face the same challenges, and by extension can be analyzed using the same tools.

However, I disagree with Aner’s concept regarding “start quality”, and the belief that if you possess star quality things will go your way “eventually”.  I think this statement is driven by “survivor bias“.  It is true that most successful rock artists, in retrospect, can be said to have “star quality”.   But the question is, how many artists with star quality did not succeed, and are excluded from the analysis? 

 Or is the definition of “star quality” derived from having been successful (in other words, if you fail, then by definition you did not have star quality)?  I’m not convinced.  There is more to success than what the individual/company brings to the table.  External forces abound – luck, trends, markets, unforeseen events, competitors, technological breakthroughs – they all contribute to success/failure.  Similarly, unless “star quality” is loosely defined to encompass any successful company, then it does not account for the fact that there are successful companies (and artists) out there who do not have “star quality”, but still they enjoy significant success.

— Oren

Why Words Matter – Can you Feed me that Chicklet?

13 years ago I was participating in group discussions on the FidoNet network.  I even had a personal profile, and could even engage groups of my friends in discussions and what not.  In retrospect, I was using a social networking service.

10 years ago I setup my first web-page on Geocities.  It had a guest-book, a comments section, the works.  In retrospect, I was running a blog.  The site also had a “links” section (Blogroll) and even had icons linking to other sites (Chicklets)

10 years ago I was receiving web content via push technology.  Remember Pointcast and Backweb?  In retrospect, I was processing content feeds (RSS).

We seem to have an urge to invent and reinvent new terms for old concepts.   From a purely cynical standpoint, one would simply point to the Hype Machine – RSS feeds are hip (and you can raise money off them), so let’s flog them to death.

But I think there are more compelling reasons that underscore this phenomena.

1. Using these specialized terms enables us to have a more focused, concise discussion.  The terms imply a shared common understanding that includes expected functionality, look and feel, APIs, standards, etc.  “I’ve setup a new chicklet” is a shorter, more informative, statement than “I’ve setup an image link which takes you to another site…”.

2. This shared understanding enables us to extend the terms in innovative ways, which would have been impossible before.  Whereas my Geocities site can be compared to a blog, it is totally foreign to the concept of a video/photo/mobile blog.  And yet once we had defined a blog, it is easy to extend its usage.  The terms we define early on become the building blocks of the next innovative layer.

3. Using these specialized terms allows us to focus on what is really important.  “I’ve set up a new social network for book-lovers“.  We immediately understand that the importance of this statement has to do with book-lovers.  We’re no longer bogged down by the term “social network”.

4. Most importantly, defining new terms tells us where we stand in terms of institutionalizing our space.  By creating a specialized jargon we clearly define who we are, what we do, what we do not do, etc.  It gives us a communal sense and clearly separates “us” from “them”.  Where would lawyers and physicians be without their mambo-jambo terminology?  We do away with the terms of the past to symbolize the uniqueness of what we do in the present.  

This is the process by which pure hype is transformed to a shared experience which takes a life of its own.   It is when your parents start referring to blogs that you know something has happened at the societal level. 

5. Practically, these shared terms simply make it easier for us to communicate.  Imagine trying to pitch a social network concept to VCs 10 years ago.  Without being able to use such concepts as tags, blogs, feeds – you’d have to hack at it, feature-by-feature, on a proprietary basis.

Of course, this is an evolutionary process.  We tend to over-hype and to create many more terms than we’ll ever be able to use.  We’re also using extremely ill-defined terms (Web 2.0 anyone?).  But the evolutionary process ensures that (a) selection shall over time weed out the less relevant terms and (b) terms shall adapt over time to the changing environment.

I find this whole topic very exciting – we are in the process of creating new products and services, but we are also creating a new language, a new way to look at the world.  Whether terms are purely internal to the industry (end users don’t care for AJAX or chicklets) or whether they cater to the general population (Podcasts, blogs, social networks, tags, etc.), this is an exciting process to observe.

— Oren