Raja Jasti’s Blog - Renaissance Thinking

August 23, 2009

Role of vision for startups

Filed under: Entrepreneurship — Raja @ 1:56 pm

I think Entrepreneur Corner at VentureBeat is a great resource for entrepreneurs. I love some of the guest posts they have. I will feaure them on this blog regularly.

There is one post by Sean O’Malley called future proofing your company’s vision. It nails what a vision means in the context of a startup which is very different from that of a large organization.

You’ve heard time and time again that vision matters. But ‘vision’ is a loaded word. Everyone thinks they know what it means, but everyone’s definition varies slightly.vision

In fact, I rarely use the word but instead ask the question: ‘What do you hope the future will hold for your company and customers?’ What’s so remarkable about this question is that it asks an entrepreneur to take a perspective on what the world will look like several years down the road. It also drives every decision thereafter.

Most startups have a hard time defining a vision because they’ve seen visions from larger companies that seem so abstract. For example, here is a vision statement from a Fortune 500 company that I’ll leave unnamed, “Powered by Innovation, Guided by Integrity, We Help Our Customers Achieve Their Most Challenging Goals.” Generic visions like this don’t inspire or drive action and inevitably get tucked away in an employee’s desk.

Successful visions bring a unique perspective and are delivered with enough clarity and conviction to ensure they stick.

Without clarity of vision, your company is on a journey with the destination unknown. I experienced the effect of unclear visions when I worked for Yahoo! in early 2000.

Yahoo’s vision had something to do with providing users with delightful web experiences. It’s pathetic I can’t remember the details and I bet you’d find very few who could in those days. (In fact, I did a web search and couldn’t find anything specific on the subject.) As a product leader at the time, this lack of clarity allowed me to operate in a silo that didn’t fully consider the company’s overall vision. It also opened up the door for everyone to act reactively to every new competitive threat.

Conversely, almost every Yahoo! employee at the time knew Google’s vision, “To organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” You can make an argument that the current market cap of Yahoo! (~$20B) vs. Google (~$140B) tells a lot about the impact of this vision clarity.

But, now that I’ve told you how important vision is, I’m going to seemingly contradict myself. I’ve never started a company from a blank piece of paper with what I’ve defined as a vision.

Instead, every startup that I’ve worked on began with a ‘perspective’ that over time grew into an opportunity, which ultimately translated into a vision.

A perspective faces the realities of a market and defines an audience, problem and customer experience that opens up an opportunity in the market. When approached in an iterative fashion, where perspectives and opportunities are revisited, entrepreneur’s visions can morph to cast a wider net to inspire bigger and greater things. This is what I call the vision wedge approach.

I think having a clear, concrete vision is important for a startup but it should be something that should  evolve as part of the prcess that figures out product market fit. This is my experience with something I am working on right now. Our vision started somewhere but then as we got the market feedback while selling the product to customers our vision got much bigger at the same time remained as clear and concrete. So I completely identify with the article.

Retarded US H1-B visa policy

Filed under: India — Raja @ 9:57 am

As an Indian immigrant living in Silicon Valley, I see both sides of the coin on the immigration policy debate. Economic recession has hit the US pretty bad. Tech industry has taken its share of the hit too. So I understand that there are many US citizens looking for a job and it is important to find ways for them to get employed again. But making it difficult for qualified, skilled and in many cases US educated immigrants to work in the US is a pretty short sighted policy. US is losing big time on this one. The contributions of these immigrants to US economy and the creation of jobs is overlooked. US loss is other countries’ gain. Sarah Lacy provides a good anaysis of this is issue.

It’s happening: Lou Dobbs’ dream come true and Silicon Valley’s worst nightmare. We’re already seeing the reverse brain drain as smart immigrants take their US educations and experience building companies and creating technology back to their home countries.  But now, xenophobia and the lack of any sensible H-1B visa policy is keeping the world’s brightest minds from coming to the U.S. in the first place

U.S. grad school admissions for would-be international students plummeted this year, according to the Council of Graduate Schools—the first decline in five years.  The decline was 3% on average, thanks to increases from China and the Middle East, but some countries saw double-digit declines in interest in a U.S. education. Applicants from India and South Korea fell 12% and 9% respectively—with students turning their sights on schools in Asia and Europe instead.

This shouldn’t be a surprise. Much of the world’s economic growth—hence, jobs—is in emerging markets, the schools are far cheaper and in many cases competitive academically, and then there’s the H-1B issue. If America won’t allow a PhD just trained in our top schools to work here and contribute to the economy—why come here and take on the student loans to begin with?

Make no mistake: This is a huge blow for the United States, and particularly Silicon Valley. It’s killing diversity in graduate schools at a time future business leaders most need to understand other countries, especially Asian ones.  The reality is one out of every four tech companies is started by an immigrant. In the tech industry, immigrants have created more high paying jobs than they’ve “stolen.”

And nearly every CEO will tell you how much added cost and hassle there is in hiring a foreign-born worker—they do it because they physically can not find enough appropriately skilled workers in the U.S. (Below is an interview I did with LinkedIn’s Reid Hoffman about this very subject a few months ago, and he wrote a guest post on TechCrunch discussing the issue as well.)

Indeed, a recent study by the Bay Area Council, the Campaign for College Opportunity and IHELP showed that we’d need a 90% upswing in people graduating with degrees in science, technology, math or engineering to keep up with all the new jobs being created in that discipline.  What created Silicon Valley was a culture of openness and there is no future to Silicon Valley without it.

I recently visited India and the number of experienced NRIs (Non Resident Indians) returning to India from US has exploded. These are people that contributed heavily to US that are now going to help make India a global power. That is a good thing as it is high time Indians that benefitted from Indian education and resources contribute to India. India deserves its place as a global power. These people are not returning as a favor to India though. They see much better opportunities for themselves in India and they get to stay close to their loved ones. Now many Indians graduating from Indian schools are staying back as it simply not worth the trouble of going to the US with all the draconian visa policies. All this is a gain to India and a loss to the US. US is certainly shooting itself in the foot in terms of its own interests. Indian should thank the US administration and Lou Dobbs.

August 22, 2009

Should Twitter share its tweet stream with Google?

Filed under: Internet — Tags: , — Raja @ 10:18 pm

It appears that twitter is seriously thinking about opening us its tweet stream (internally called firehose) to others including google. Why would they do that? They plan to charge money for that access of course. Should twitter do that?

Edo Segal wrote a guest post on techcrunch calling such move a suicide.

In a way we are all virtual stock holders in Twitter. We all have a vested interest in its success. Facebook is soon to monopolize the social stream to the same extent that Google has done with search. That is not good for anyone, including Facebook. I have had many discussions with people in recent weeks about the face-off between twitter and Facebook and also about the high probability of Twitter cutting a deal with Google. When I was asked by Erick Schonfeld at the Real Tiime Stream Crunchup (Video) event about my opinion on Twitter giving Google their firehose feed, I responded that they could do that if they don’t plan to sell their company in the future. In other words, it is my humble opinion that if Twitter was a publicly traded stock its value would drop by 75% the second that deal was announced and for good reason.

It is a long article but has some good insights. I also agrree with him that it would be a strategic mistake for twitter should to share its tweet stream with google or anyone else for that matter. Tweet stream is twitter’s crown jewels that they should leverage for building up their value. Would google license their relevance algorithms to other companies? See what I mean? Google’s competitive advanatage stems from the fact that they have the most data on seaches which they leverage in their relevance algorithms. That is why they own search. Imagine what would have happened if they licensed it to Yahoo when google was figuring out how to make money. Google would be just another technolgy supplier as Yahoo saw them those days. If twitter licenses their firehose to others it would marginilalize their value to the internet.

Why would twitter think of doing it? It would be easy way to make money. Twitter probably thinks google can make their streams more valuable (which probably is true) thereby increasing twitter’s value. There may be one more reason. Twitter thinks it may make them more attractive target for Google to pay big bucks and buy them.

I think in the end it all boils down to how confident twitter is aout their own potential and their self worth. If they are truly confident they wouldn’t provide access to their crown jewels to others. They shouldn’t do that now. Not yet anyways.

Music 2.0

Filed under: Entertainment, Internet, Media — Tags: — Raja @ 11:14 am

Orli Yakuel has a comprehensive guide for enjoying music on the web.

Music plays a large role in our lives. Since the web now plays an even bigger part, combining the two together has become unavoidable. The greatest thing about this powerful duo is that you don’t need to spend a lot of time searching for music you like  — just use this nifty guide list and you’ll find just about everything you need to enjoy hours of good music. The sound quality changes from service to service, but overall, it’s good enough for regular web usage.

Please note that this is a list of services that you can use over the net without the need to download anything to your computer. This is why I’m not listing any P2P software: i.e., Spotify, as well the fact that most of us can’t really test it or use it for all that matter.

Music Recommendations:

paPandora is a service that can be used only in a specific locale, this one being within the U.S. Luckily, I had the chance to test the service when it was first released and became available to everyone. Launched way back in July 2005, the project had been in the initial testing phases for five years prior to launch date. Pandora recommends music to you by matching similar musical attributes. All you really need to do is choose an artist or a band you like, and Pandora will do the rest. Pandora delivers high quality 128Kbps audio streams, offering recommendations similar to the artists you have chosen. Pandora’s player looks like a radio, you can open up to 100 stations and navigate through them quickly. Registering for Pandora will provide you with a free account (advertising-supported). Free Pandora accounts will play up to  40 hours of music for free per month, you also have the option to pay 99 cents for unlimited listening hours for the rest of that month, or pay $36 to upgrade Pandora for one year. If you want to download music from Pandora, you can do it through iTunes or Amazon. You can see our past Pandora coverage here.

lastfmWith almost 3 million unique visitors a day, Last.fm is one of the most powerful social music communities on the Web today. Like Pandora, the service allows you to enjoy music that you like, but unlike Pandora, Last.fm analyses what you and your friends listen to and like, and then suggests more music based on that analysis. When you recommend music to a friend or you tag it, or you write about it, or simply just listen to it - you shift the song’s importance on the site, and will in turn get recommended to more people. Based on the music you’ve already listened to, Last.fm will recommend new music you might like, as well as suggest other users with a similar music taste to yours, which you might be interested in friending, and you can also easily communicate with them. If you live outside the U.S., U.K. or Germany, you can listen with a free 30-track trial or subscribe for a low price of $3/month for unlimited radio streaming. (Launched in 2002!)

deezerThis is how BlogMusik, looked in 2006, and this is how Deezer (formerly BlogMusik) looks today - pretty impressive change, don’t you think? The French-based service is one of the largest and happens to also be a very successful music recommendation search engine. Once registered here, you can create your personal profile and reach the Deezer community. You can create playlists, send messages to your contacts, leave comments, add artists and albums to your favorites, and more. But here’s what I like the most - The SmartRadio, which is an intelligent radio that automatically generates 3 hours(!) of continuous listening based on one artist - completely free. Priceless! You can see our past coverage of Deezer here.

finetuneI think the first Adobe AIR application that I ever tried was Finetune. Finetune provides you with the most interesting new playlists of related music from your choice of artists. Besides the site’s community where you can browse, listen to music, create a profile, connect with other users and more, Finefune also has some cool feautures to complete their suite, and each tool gives you an extraordinary music experience. Take for example the Finetune Wii project (which can be played also over the web), it’s a great sight and sound for the eyes and ears. Just enter an artist’s name and Finetune will create a playlist with similar music that will play for hours. Best of all it’s free, and you also get an iPhone, Facebook and a Desktop app that all sync with your music playlist, no matter where you play it from. You can see our past coverage of FineTune here.

Also worth mentioning in this same topic group are, of course: Ilike.com (acquired by Myspace), and music.strands.tv

This is just a part of her article. Please checkout her entire article for a complete look.

Startup Lessons: Lookery

Filed under: Entrepreneurship, Internet — Raja @ 9:48 am

Entrepreneurs can learn a lot from the demise of Lookery and Tipjoy.

Scott Rafer, CEO of Lookery which is closing its doors, wrote a very honest post about the reasons that lead to the lookery being shut down. If you are an entrepreneur I think it is worth your time to read the entire article.

Moving on to our specific coulda-shoulda product and market choices, there are three key moments at which a different and defensible decision might have made all the difference. In chronological order, the sins Lookery committed under my leadership were continuing our dependency on a large partner (March 2008), not knowing when to cut bait on a failing asset (September 2008), and building ahead of the market (December 2008). I and we made any number of other mistakes, but all the rest were correctable. Avoiding even one of the three big errors might have been enough to get us over the hump.

I believe David and I started Lookery in July 2007 in the right way and for the right reasons. Based partially on my F8-launch work for LendingClub (a company I’m thrilled to know) David and I decided to quickly offer a no-frills banner network for Facebook app publishers. We went from commitment to live service in well under two weeks using AWS and OpenAds, pulled in Rex Dixon almost immediately to manage the publishers and Todd Sawicki soon thereafter as we needed a real ad pro. Both David and I had been keen observers of, and vendors to, the online ad business from the outside, and Todd was the online advertising insider that completed the early team. By March 1, 2008, we were getting pretty close to a billion impressions a week, had moved the ad ops to Atlas, started spec’ing Lookery’s targeting technology, and closed out a $1M convertible note financing that had been rolling in since October.

So far so good on using an ephemeral opportunity to create a company, but this is where I place Coulda-Shoulda #1. We exposed ourselves to a huge single point of failure called Facebook. I’ve ranted for years about how bad an idea it is for startups to be mobile-carrier dependent. In retrospect, there is no difference between Verizon Wireless and Facebook in this context. To succeed in that kind of environment requires any number of resources. One of them is clearly significant outside financing, which we’d explicitly chosen to do without. We could have and should have used the proceeds of the convertible note to get out from under Facebook’s thumb rather to invest further in the Facebook Platform.

Coulda-Shoulda #2. Predictably and reasonably, Facebook acted in their own interest rather than ours. Their Summer 2008 redesign supported Facebook’s goals elegantly but hurt our publishers and us in ways that became clear just weeks after we’d raised another ~$2M. At this point, we made a mistake endemic to startup people. We followed our natural inclination as problem solvers rather than getting out while the getting was good. If we’d sold the ad network the minute we understood that we could no longer make it successful, we would have saved a couple hundred thousand dollars in working capital. Plus, the ad network would have fetched three to five times its low-six figure sale price less than 60 days later. That’s a million dollar mistake I made in a very short period of time. I should understand sunk costs better than this.

To give credit where it’s due, Todd closed the sale of the Lookery ad network to AdKnowledge in less than two weeks from the moment we decided it had to go. I was off promoting Lookery’s targeting system to European demographic data sources and social networks and was not even in the country during those two weeks.

Coulda-Shoulda #3. Once we sold the ad network, I fell into a bad old habit — persuading my team to build something before the market was ready for it. Oren usually saves me from myself in this regard, but I didn’t pull him away from Mashery for the day or two necessary to diagnose the problem. Mashery is doing so well that I clearly could have. Lookery’s Profile SaaS/universal cookie mechanism is far more economic and effective than cookie exchange systems in a world where ad media and targeting data are separate commodities. That world is a year or more in the future.

I think they had two things going against them. 1) Betting your entire long term future on a non proven/evolving platform (I wrote about this many times before) 2) Being an adnetwork when the advertising is tanking. The first mistake was correctible and should have been while the second was bad luck. Luck plays a major role in the success or failure of any startup.

This is a bad week for social app companies. Tipjoy, a startup that I really like, closed its doors few days ago. Shut down of these once  promising companies should ring a major warning bell to all the startups that are betting their farm on facebook, twitter and iphone. Here is what Tipjoy founders had to say:

When we evaluate why there’s been so much hype about payments on Twitter, and yet so little traction for us (and even far less for our competitors) it is clear to us that the reason is that a 3rd party payment service doesn’t add enough value. We strongly believe that social payments will work on a social network, provided that they’re done within the platform and not as a 3rd party. “Simple, social payments” is *the* philosophy needed to do digital payments right, but once a service groks that, they need only to implement it on their own. We’ve been the thought leaders in this space, we see the hype and excitement, and yet we know very intimately the difficulties in gaining actual traction. The only way to get around this is for the platforms themselves to control payments - then all people wanting to operate on that platform would have to play along. We believe that a payments system directly and officially integrated into social networks such as Twitter and Facebook will be a huge success.

It looks like Tipjoy wanted to get acquired by facebook, but facebook wants to build a payment system of their own. This means death knell for Tipjoy. Similar development forced a fire sale of iLike to myspace.

It should be clear by now that facebook, twitter and iphone (to some extent) want to use their platform to indentify killer categories that they want to get into on their own. Don’t be a guinea pig. Get out of depending on these platforms before it is too late.

August 21, 2009

Is Bing a worthy rival to Google?

Filed under: Internet — Tags: , , — Raja @ 2:33 pm

Farhad Manjoo of Time.com says google may have finally found a worthy rvial in microsoft’s bing.

bing-Google illo

Every year, the market-research firm Millward Brown conducts a survey to determine the economic worth of the world’s brands — in other words, to put a dollar value on the many corporate logos that dominate our lives. Lately the firm’s results have been stuck on repeat: Google has claimed the top spot for the past three years. The most recent report values Google’s brand — those six happy letters that herald so many of our jaunts down the Web’s rabbit hole — at more than $100 billion.

What’s astonishing about this stat is how effortlessly Google seems to have earned the public’s affection. Other companies — Microsoft, Coke, IBM, McDonald’s — spend enormous sums to stay in the consciousness. Google, which makes most of its money from ads, rarely advertises itself. Telling the world how well it does what it does just isn’t Google’s way.

But Google’s humility is being tested as never before. The firm’s headquarters in Mountain View, Calif., seem besieged by competitors gaining new momentum. Even nominal allies are questioning the company’s motives and long-term plans. In July, Google’s largest competitors, Microsoft and Yahoo!, agreed to work together in an attempt to dethrone it as the world’s dominant search engine. The deal, which awaits government approval, would create a first: a tenacious, well-financed search rival.

Conflicts are beginning to take place in other areas where Google has ventured. That includes e-mail and office programs (Gmail, Google Docs), a cell-phone operating system (Android) and a Web browser (Chrome). Google scans and sells books, runs a phone system and is even working on a desktop operating system to rival Windows. CEO Eric Schmidt recently stepped down from Apple’s board of directors because the two companies now compete in so many areas. The U.S. Justice Department is investigating a legal settlement between Google and the publishing industry over the company’s book-scanning service, and Christine Varney, Justice’s antitrust chief, said she sees Google as a “problem.”

At the moment, Google’s most pressing problem is Microsoft. The software giant is spending $100 million to market its new search engine, Bing — and in the process, to get us all bummed about Google. Bing’s slick ads are unavoidable and blistering. They suggest that Google is broken, that it rarely leads us to what we’re looking for and turns us all into blathering zombies who spew out search keywords in casual conversation.

August 20, 2009

Reinventing the phone call

Filed under: Internet, Technology, Trends — Tags: — Raja @ 12:54 pm

CNN Money has a post on phone 2.0. This topic is not new but is worth tracking.

Andy Jagoe is zigging while the rest of the mobile world zags. Let everyone else chase the next hot iPhone app. He’s betting the next big thing is a twist on the same old thing: making calls.

He may be right. Jagoe, CEO and co-founder of startup 3jam, is one of several Silicon Valley dreamers who thinks he can reinvent the phone call. And really, let’s admit it’s in need of some Internet-style innovation. We’re in 2009, for crying out loud. Why isn’t call forwarding as easy as e-mail forwarding? Why don’t your voicemails live in a nifty little online inbox?

Remember web 2.0? It’s time for phone 2.0.

And it’s arriving. The most prominent example is Google’s (GOOG) Google Voice, an invitation-only service that offers a free Internet telephone number that forwards calls wherever its owner chooses and delivers features like visual voicemail, call screening and transcription.

Mountain View-based Ditech Networks (DITC) has a similar invitation-only offering called toktok. San Francisco-based 3jam, which is open to the public and starts at $5 per month, adds tricks like convenient group text messaging.

Voice apps are coming

Not everyone is a fan. Apple (AAPL) caused a stir last month when it barred Google Voice software from the iPhone App Store, saying it duplicates features the handset already provides. But Jagoe thinks the services will prevail eventually. “It’s going to be hard,” he says, “to prevent this kind of functionality from appearing on a phone.”

Indeed, people who use these services swear by them, and in Silicon Valley these days it’s a growing cohort. (At a mobile technology panel this month at Microsoft’s (MSFT) Mountain View campus, Google Voice users outnumbered Amazon (AMZN) Kindle users five to one.) The reason is simple: phone 2.0 is liberating phone calls the same way webmail liberated e-mail a decade ago. Now you can keep your phone number, your call history and your voicemails no matter how many times you move, change jobs or switch carriers.

Over a burger at a San Francisco lunch spot, Jagoe explains why this revolution in phone calls is happening now. First, it recently became more affordable for startups like 3jam to forward calls to landlines. Second, Neustar (NSR), a company that enables text messaging, this year gave Internet-based phone numbers a boost by allowing them to send and receive text messages. And third, mobile consumers increasingly crave better options for managing their conversations and staying productive.

Phone 2.0 is going to really transform many industries (telecom, media) and functional areas (sales, marketing, customer service) and create humongous opportunities for entrepreneurs. A disruptive hurricane is brewing.

Videos in print magazine?

Filed under: Media, Technology, Trends — Tags: — Raja @ 12:39 pm

Yes, you heard it right. BBC reports that Entertainment Weekly will carry video ads in select copies.

Magazines

Magazine publishers are beginning to experiment with new technologies

The first-ever video advertisement will be published in a traditional paper magazine in September.

The video-in-print ads will appear in select copies of the US show business title Entertainment Weekly.

The slim-line screens - around the size of a mobile phone display - also have rechargeable batteries.

The chip technology used to store the video - described as similar to that used in singing greeting cards - is activated when the page is turned.

Each chip can hold up to 40 minutes of video.

The first clips will preview programmes from US TV network CBS and show adverts by the drinks company Pepsi.

They will appear in 18 September editions of the magazine distributed in Los Angeles and New York.

It’s believed the new technology will cost much more than normal print ads.

Embedding others’ posts

Filed under: Media, Trends — Tags: — Raja @ 12:14 pm

Recently I had an interesting interchange (checkout the comments section) on my blog with Arthur Charles, tech editor at the Guardian, who threatened to sue me because I quoted an article almost in its entirety in a post. He called it ’stealing’. I suggested to him that he should let bloggers like me ’steal’ his content to promote it to our readers and friends. I gave embeddable YouTube videos as an example of letting others steal content and suggested him to offer a widget that can do the same for his content. Well, now I see such a widget for blog posts. Henrly Blodget, former wall street ananyst who now runs a popular blog called business insider, is allowing others to embed his posts.

I think the widget needs some work (I am having trouble embeding it on my blog) but he has the right idea. He controls his content while letting others give him free publicity.

August 19, 2009

Platform risk with facebook, twitter and iphone

Filed under: Entrepreneurship, Internet, Technology — Raja @ 11:31 am

Yesterday I wrote about the risks that come with depending on solely on platfrrms such as facebook, twitter and iphone. Techcrunch and CNET have posts along a smiliar line:

 

What has pushed iLike’s valuation down is a problem with control. The company’s managers have no way to prove to potential acquirers that their business model has a bright future because they can’t predict from one day to the next which direction Facebook’s Platform will go. The source said that leaders at iLike, or any other company on the platform, are not truly in control of their fate–Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg is.

“The cash flow of any company doing business on Facebook’s API, or Facebook Connect, or Facebook platform is inherently at risk,” said the source. “The multiple that an investor can place on that cash flow is not that much greater than 1, because you never know at which point Facebook could change the terms of the relationship or change the technology and cut off that cash flow.”

There is no question that plenty of other factors may have contributed to iLike’s meager sales price, but the questions raised by the music service’s predicament may be a warning to companies that have banked on the developer platforms created by Apple, Twitter, and Facebook. It only makes sense that potential buyers of these pilotfish start-ups would demand a price that reflects the risks. After all, what happens if Facebook or Apple decides they want to compete in your sector? Click, off go the lights.

Facebook representatives did not respond to an interview request. Ali Partovi, iLike’s CEO, on Tuesday issued a terse statement: “Twitter and the iPhone are the platforms of the future.”

A true platform must satisfy two conditions for me to build applications/product on them. 1. They must have cleat sustainable business model that is already producing billion dollar reveneues for the platform 2. The platform must have proven track record of letting 3rd party apps flourish and make money. None of the platforms I mentioned, twitter, facebook and iphone satisfy either of these consitions let alone both.

This doesn’t mean one should ignore them all together. They can be leveraged to make a quick buck like some iphone apps are doing or use them to seed users for viral growth like youtube did with myspace. Don’t bet the future of your whole company on these platform yet.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress