There Is No "Osborne Effect" In Web Services

In the world of technology, practically no story of warning is better known than that of Adam Osborne's ill-fated promise of his next generation of computer models outperforming the current offerings. The story states that the result of his premature leaking was a dramatic decline in sales that led to the company's death. (Even if truth later proved the story somewhat incorrect) This, in combination with competitive pressures in practically all markets, has led to a culture of secrecy, undisclosed roadmaps and obfuscation in the industry, aimed to prevent a similar fate. But as I look at many of the products we use today, including Web services, which can be updated in line, and don't require a specific point purchase, this mentality is overblown - especially when it comes to the market leaders, for whom users' switching to an alternative is unlikely.

In May of 2008, I said that I believed a simple feature war between sites was "the wrong war." Users of products including top Web services like Google, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and others absolutely benefit from the features offered, but they stick around thanks to their data being on each service, and the many connections they have cultivated - whether you define that as a community, or instead, as an audience.

If you are a hardware manufacturer, like Apple, Dell, EMC or Cisco, it makes a ton of sense to only discuss future products with potential customers who are not going to purchase in the current buying cycle, and do so under non-disclosure agreements, to prevent their whisperings from impacting your sales. But I think users of the many different Web services out there would benefit from gaining greater visibility into these companies' plans and priorities - which would serve as an early platform for feedback, provide guidance into how they could expect the community to evolve, and at the very least, show that they were continuing to improve the platform.

As you no doubt saw at the end of the last week, and from coverage this weekend, Facebook introduced a new look for their news feed. Some people love it, some people no doubt dislike it, and many are in between. But the hardest part for some is the element of surprise. Often when a site has a massive overhaul, they leave up a link to the previous version for those not yet ready to make a move - even if it is clearly outdated.

But if you think about it, are people going to switch from Facebook to MySpace or Friendster because of a UI change? Probably not. Are they going to use the site less often? Maybe, but not in a dramatic way. So Facebook can be pretty secure in knowing that their users are going to stick around.

In contrast to the secrecy, I have been impressed of late as to the transparency seen from Twitter in terms of the company's rolling out feature enhancements, and telling users in advance what is to come. The company has talked openly about their new ReTweet API, and also talked about the addition of Lists. Twitter has learned from its previous mistakes that abruptly made changes, impacting users and creating something like a mob.

Twitter, despite incredible competition for mindshare from Facebook and others, is confident enough that their tipping their hand isn't going to create a competitive problem - and easing users into new features makes it seem much more collaborative. But not everybody believes in this model. During the hubbub around Facebook's future plans for FriendFeed, co-founder Paul Buchheit said "we don't pre-announce things, so for now all I can say is that there's good stuff on the way." His update to the FriendFeed community was both reassuring and not reassuring at the same time - showing they were not asleep at the switch, but giving no clarity at a time when many are looking for some. Would his telling us a few features on their plate for Facebook have upset the apple cart any?

As noted before, Feedly, the next generation start page powered by RSS, has a public roadmap. (Here is their 2009 offering) Feedly is confident enough to show you what they are working on months in advance, even if there is potential slippage, and even if there are competitors who might integrate similar features into their own plans. But there is no potential for an Osborne Effect here. You either use Feedly or you don't. It's very unlikely that you will look at their future plans and walk away because you don't like the product direction - and it's less likely that you will write down their itinerary and make a competing offering.

If I am Apple, I would keep secrets. But if I were running a Web service, and was confident I could deliver on my promises, I would be sure to open up to the users and let them know what my priorities were early, rather than hiding under a cloak of mystery. Users need guidance and confidence that they are part of something that is continuing to improve, and won't be abandoned.

At 5:04 P.M. On October 17, 1989, The Earth Moved

20 years ago today, a 6.9 magnitude earthquake hit the San Francisco Bay Area, taking 63 lives, postponing the World Series featuring the San Francisco Giants and the Oakland A's, and putting the entire region into disarray. Over time, the community rebuilt itself, and the entire Bay Area continued to produce world-leading technology in Silicon Valley and training top students at Stanford, UC Berkeley and other area schools, helping to accelerate the digital age we live in now.

Nobody knows when the next big earthquake will happen, but practically everyone believes that we're due. Last year, I wondered aloud how the world might react to an earthquake that hit the Valley, perceived to be full of upper-class egocentric folks, not the more sympathetic low-income victims hit by natural disasters around the world. But there's no doubt that if there were a disaster to hit the Bay Area, again the region would need help.

Everybody in the area has their own story. "Where were you when the earthquake hit?"

At the time of the earthquake, I was only 12 years old, and on my way to soccer practice. I lived in Northern California, but far away from the damage of the quake. An A's fan, I had looked forward to seeing the 3rd game of the World Series, but soccer practice had been on the calendar, so off I went.

On the way to practice, the only bumps and shakes we felt were the result of the coach's rickety van going down the semi-paved roads. We didn't know about the quake, and practice was set to start at 5.

Midway through the practice, as we were scrimmaging, one of the other kid's moms pulled up and said there had been a massive earthquake in San Francisco, saying that anybody who had family or friends in San Francisco could come with her, and she would take them home. The rest of the scrimmage, as we listlessly kicked the ball, our thoughts were somewhere else.

At the end of the practice, we went home and watched the news roll in on the TV, and we learned more over the next hours and days. The Bay Bridge had collapsed. The Marina was on fire. The World Series was being postponed. Everything had stopped. The ensuing days were full of statistics and stories of individual heroism. The community rallied together and rebuilt.

Eventually, the A's came back and won the World Series. They swept. It's the last time they won, so it's been 20 years for that too. And even though it has been twenty years, I always remember the day of the big quake. October 17th, 1989. I remember the time. 5:04 p.m. If you were in the Bay Area, what was your story? What do you remember?

Sitting With @Scobleizer and @Jesse As Part of a Big Silicon Valley Day

With friend and fellow blogger Jesse Stay in the Bay Area for the day, I played the part of chauffeur and sidekick, hitting a number of key Silicon Valley landmarks this afternoon. After he finished a lunch at eBay/Paypal, the two of us drove up Highway 101 to meet with the API team at Twitter. Then we headed south and caught up with our mutual friend, Robert Scoble, who true to form, turned on the video camera and engaged with us in a discussion around social networking applications, product development, and our thoughts on Twitter, Foursquare, Google Wave, etc. The video is about an hour long, so buckle your seatbelts.



Afterward, Jesse and I made a quick stop at Apple headquarters in Cupertino and then got dinner at home in Sunnyvale, where he met the twins, and then I took him back to pick up his car, after swinging by Cisco HQ just for show and tell. In the eight hours I dragged Jesse up and down the Peninsula, we managed to see or visit eBay, Yahoo!, EMC, Cisco, Twitter, Apple, AMD, Extreme Networks, TiVo and National Semiconductor, to name a few. All part of the Silicon Valley experience.

If you're a die-hard who can't get enough of our repartee, there was more of the discussion that tripped into a "part two", which you can catch here.

---

FTC Disclosure: I got a free t-shirt from Twitter AND a free t-shirt from Robert that says Building 43 on it. Oh yeah, Jesse also runs SocialToo where I am an advisor. Also, at one time, I visited TiVo headquarters and got a grab bag of goodies. Also, a TiVo employee paid for lunch that day. :)

---

On Raising Money: Goals, Valuations and Pressure

For the most part, starting a successful business in Silicon Valley and having to raise money from venture capitalists (VCs) practically go hand in hand. Like most things here in the Valley, there are no guarantees. Raising $100 million doesn't guarantee success. Raising funding from specific venture firms with solid track records doesn't guarantee success. And, depending on the stage of a company's lifespan, raising money can be viewed negatively as much as it can be a positive thing. Meanwhile, if you're curious as to how much attention should be paid to valuations of private companies, well, trust me, that too can vary widely, depending on market conditions, momentum, founders' goals, and individual firm's enthusiasm.

Since starting my career in the Valley back in 1998, I've seen much of this process up close. I've worked at a company that once raised a $1 million seed round of funding, but I've also worked at one that raised $72 million in a single round - part of more than $200 million raised, thus far. I once saw a company I worked at close down because investors stopped funding outright, worked at another that found itself acquired by a big name tech firm months after I left, and also worked at one that filed, and later withdrew, its IPO bid. And while I wasn't sitting across the table from the VCs asking for their funds, in most cases, I certainly helped position each company in advance, and saw the effects each round played in the company's lifecycle. I mention this to add some level of background for why I thought to add my two cents to some of the discussion has been teetering in the blogosphere of late, especially following the news of Twitter's latest round of funding, rumored to be as much as $100 million.

Why would investors put money into a company to begin with? There are a few most-common outcomes:

1. The company could later merge with another firm, or be purchased outright (M&A)
2. The company could eventually go public and have an IPO.
3. The company could remain private and be self-sustaining.
4. The company could eventually close down, through bankruptcy or other means.

Of these scenarios, investors are most interested in potential M&A opportunities or the potential for going public. Obviously, investing in a company that will shut down is not a good way to use one's funds, and a company that has no real "exit strategy" but plans to meander forward, private and independent, will not provide the big returns hoped for by venture capitalists. In the reverse scenario, why would a company raise money?

1. To gain initial capital to start the business.
2. To gain capital necessary to expand the business, be it through marketing, human capital, new product lines, through geographical expansion, or even through acquiring other companies.
3. To avoid running out of money and needing to close its doors.
4. To obtain a level of valuation that sets a mark for potential acquirers.

As tempting as it can be for a company to raise the largest amount of funds possible, to have this cash available in the bank, the greater the amount raised typically also means the greater the reduction in control - as the company's initial founders see third party VCs take a higher percentage stake in the company. They may gain multiple seats on the board of directors, and gain influence that can be used to push the company toward one direction or another. Should they gain enough of a stake, it can be possible they end up pushing out the company's CEO or management team altogether, especially if expectations are not being met.

Thus, many entrepreneurs suggest a company raise as little money as is necessary to run the core business - and no more. In many cases, as soon as venture capitalists are involved, the pressure to reach stages one or two (M&A or an IPO) increases, and as time goes forward, or more capital is invested, the heat can intensify.

In parallel, if a company has determined it should raise a specific amount of capital, and has been fortunate enough to gain access to it, the preference would be to give away as little of the company as possible, essentially valuing the company at a higher rate than if more were sold for less. This valuation can be set based on the company's current sales numbers, its projections for the future, market competition, market dynamics and often, a combination of all factors.

Given this, if you examine the news around Twitter from last week, it has been written that Twitter sold ten percent of the company for $100 million, which valued the company at $1 billion. It has been said that Twitter raised the $100 million despite having a significant amount of money in the bank (up to $30 million) from its previous funds. So why would they raise now, and why this amount? Without having asked Ev, Biz and the team myself, you can see above just why now would be the time. First, the company, despite having little to no revenue to speak of, is in an incredible position. The service's growth over the last two years has been nothing short of phenomenal. Second, the company's internal projections, as we understand them, are aggressive - and third, many different news stories have shown practically all the large players in the Valley, from Microsoft to Facebook to Google, as having been interested in acquiring the microblogging company.

Similarly, we saw Facebook raise a massive $200 million in May of 2009 at a $10 billion valuation, following a $240 million round raised from Microsoft in 2007 that valued the social networking giant at $15 billion. Huge numbers on all counts, from the amount raised to the total valuation - again meaning how much would be needed to buy the entire company at that price.

For Twitter, raising the $100 million sets the company up to expand their business in terms of human capital and its technology infrastructure in a big way. While $100 million is not a bottomless trough of cash, it certainly helps. It puts the idea of the company running out of cash far out of the picture, and absolutely succeeds in driving the price higher for potential acquirers, should the service not be aiming to go public in the near future.

For Twitter's leadership, raising money now is a fantastic move. It's improbable that the company could find remarkably better terms in the coming months, and it sets in stone now where potential suitors would need to begin to even entertain discussions. Meanwhile, those investors who just ponied up the $100 million would want to see a positive return on their investment, and thus, would expect Twitter to hold out for an even greater number.

But once the money is in the bank, so begins the pressure. It may not be visible in three months or six months, but outside observers, and no doubt, internal participants are going to want to see plans for that cash, not just in how it is being spent, but in terms of how it will be converted, either into a large acquisition, be it to Google or another player, or if the company finds its way into reaching the public markets.

So what could go wrong? If neither of the above were to happen, and in parallel, Twitter were incapable of growing revenues to approach its level of expenses, the company would remain private, and see its cash balance decrease. Over time, as pressure grew inside the firm, they would be forced to raise money again - likely at a lower valuation, given reduced prospects, meaning the company would have to give up more to get less. You can see this often as you watch companies in the Valley go from the euphoria of their seed and A rounds, followed by less-enthusiastic B, C, D rounds and beyond. And if you hear about a "mezzanine" round, that's the one that truly, finally, should bring the company to break even, or catapult it into position for a near-term public offering. And if it doesn't, let's just say that's not good - as the "burn rate", the monthly expenses that draw down the company's finances, force action, and it won't be at a level the company had hoped for, especially after such lofty beginnings.

In the wake of 37 Signals' tongue in cheek press release that they were valued at $100 billion (with a B) following a brazen 1 dollar investment, one can scoff at revenue-light companies like Twitter saying they should be measured on par with public companies that have real revenues and real growth. But part of being a venture capitalist is that first word, "venture". It's an adventure. It's a risk, and a gamble, and one that relies on promises and potential. Twitter is worth $1 billion dollars, according to these investors, not because of what it is today, as strong as it is, but because of what it is in the future. Had Twitter chosen to sit on its laurels and not raise the money it did, at the valuation it did, the company could not expand to the level it has planned, and it would be at a much higher risk for potential acquisition, something they look disinterested in doing.

Ev Williams and Biz Stone, as well as the other Twitter employees and investors, know they are on to something. Be it vapor or be it real, the company has seized the minds of the Valley in a way unseen probably since the debut of Google on the stock market earlier this decade. Not even Facebook, who is larger and better funded, seems to be as visible as the scrappy San Francisco startup best known for its limitations - 140 characters. With $100 million in tow, the company is set to continue its growth independently, set to work on reducing its burn rate, with a much longer runway.

Meanwhile, don't let the nine-figure number fool you into thinking this is now a slam dunk. The valley is littered with companies that have gone this route. Procket Networks, which raised $272 million from VCs, sold to Cisco for $89 million in 2004. Caspian Networks raised more than $300 million and closed its doors in 2006. And that doesn't even get into the $800 million raised for WebVan or the $250 million for Kozmo.com in the headier Web 1.0 days. (See also: The 20 Worst Venture Capital Investments of All Time)

While we have seen the internal strategy of Twitter "laid bare" earlier this year, we won't be the ones spending Twitter's money, or staving off their burn rate. That's up to them, and up to their board. Gaining the $100 million on top of their preexisting cash horde was the right thing to do to potentially reward some of their founders, who may have sold stock in this round, and also to prop the company up and make it stronger against formidable competition. This Valley is more than just a hub for innovative technology. It's also home for some of the greatest wealth creation the world has ever seen. Now, we get to see, in public, how this particular investment plays out.

For more reading on this, please see:

• Anil Dash: TechCrunch, Venture Capital, Record Labels and Getting What You Asked For
  
• Doc Searls: On value and valuation
  
• VC Freak: Understanding the Mind of a Venture Capitalist

Fry's Electronics: A Silicon Valley Legend With Legendary Flaws

Despite the fact both retail outlets sell computer equipment, including hardware and software, Fry's Electronics superstores and Apple's retail stores could not be more different. One offers a specialized set of products, and packs its stores to the gills with helpful employees, while giving customers free reign to use their products, and can approve customer purchases through the use of a handheld scanner device. The second offers a dizzying array of products, from vacuums and office chairs to iPod headphones and copper wiring, and its employees haven't won any awards for their product knowledge - while checking out items requires an usher, while your bags are rudely inspected - as if you had the forethought to take on the role of a shoplifter. It's clear which one is which, if you have ever stepped foot in either one - which makes me wonder sometimes why I keep revisiting Fry's, hoping each next experience will trump the last.

Fry's failings are at times comical - including my most recent trip this Saturday. I stopped into the store that afternoon for a simple task, finding Apple's Mac OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard), which had released the day before. I was unsure whether Fry's in Sunnyvale would have it, but if they did, it would be a longer trip down to the Apple Store at the Valley Fair Mall in San Jose.

Upon entering this geek warehouse, I made a beeline for the Mac area, where Apple products are isolated in a special setting that makes the computers seem more like they belong in a zoo than in the jungle of PC parts and widgets just outside the enclosing aisles.


Mac OS X 15.6. From the Future!
To my surprise, there was no banner, or even a sign, announcing Snow Leopard had arrived. I looked to and fro, and didn't see Apple's famous boxes. I asked one employee, who was in the Mac section, for help and she pointed me to a manager, behind a nearby podium. I asked the manager, and she said that she didn't know where Mac OS X 10.6 would be, and maybe her boss would.

After flagging him down, and explaining, he pointed back to his subordinate, saying Mac OS was her department. She said, "Oh! I thought you meant Mapquest!"

Right. Why would I buy software from Mapquest at Fry's?

With renewed vigor around her newly-reminded knowledge, we turned back to the Mac section, and found Snow Leopard cases quietly hiding on the shelf. Below the DVD cases was a simple descriptor: "Mac OS X 15.6 Snow Leopard", for only $27.99. Of course, that would mean the operating system software was five generations into the future, which is outstanding. Or it was a typo. You decide. And that doesn't even go into the label failing to mention it is a DVD install, not a CD-Rom install.

Did Fry's have what I was looking for? Yes. Did it have it at a cheap price? Yes. Was it nearby? Yes. And that's about all I can say in favor of why I continue to return to this geek mecca of annoyance. I know that if I took the time to drive down to the Valley Fair mall, not only would they be posting banners of Mac OS X 10.6's imminent arrival, I would have gotten somebody to help in minutes, scanning me out right away - without trying to upsell me on a warranty, or walking me through an impulse buy section stock full of electric razors and bulk candy.

Fry's is no doubt a mecca for the do it yourself gadget geek. But the contrast between the warehouse mentality shown at Fry's, versus the personal touch felt in Apple Stores has me wondering if next time I'll just make the extra drive and reward their effort.

As for Mac OS X 15.6, I came home disappointed with merely owning Mac OS X 10.6, so I don't get any early adopter cred.

Hi Facebook, It's Me, FriendFeed. This Relationship? It's Complicated.

Alright Facebook. I didn't want it to be like this, so let me tell you in a way that you'll understand. You know how you started out as a program for nerdy college boys to rate the best ladies, find which ones were available, and see if there was a way to hook up? You know how you've grown up to now be much more than that - maturing into a platform that routinely sends me Mafia Wars invitations, and wants to poke me every so often to make sure I'm around? Well congratulations. Because just like in high school, sometimes the sweaty jock who doesn't wash his hands after using the john still gets the best girl - while those of us who carried her books and wrote her poetic love letters and timed our walking to go by her locker at just the right time find ourselves on the outside looking in again.

Yeah. I get it. I get how I could BS and say "I'm happy for you." "I only want what's best for you." "Take good care of her." But look. I know your reputation. You're not trusted. I know about the other girls. I know they change - and not in a good way - after you've been with them. So yeah.

Today, you announced you were buying FriendFeed - in what looks like it might have just been a two-year-long job interview for a dozen of Google's brightest minds (courtesy of Drew Olanoff, who called immediately after news broke). It's not like we didn't really know something was up, after all - you could see in the way the FriendFeed team rolled in all giddy this morning at a time well before when they usually rise, waiting for the other shoe to drop. You could see in the way they collectively had a heart attack when I walked into their offices last week unannounced and caught them in what was called "a company meeting" - which practically needed bouncers out the door for how quickly I left.

Here's the thing. FriendFeed is the good girl. FriendFeed is the one that has a 4.0 GPA and had big dreams of an Ivy League diploma. And yet, she ends up with you - the Silicon Valley equivalent of your local state school. When you come rolling in with your heavy car, big wheels and pumping bass, we don't care how much money you say you're worth - we still don't trust your grin when you open the door and say "hop in".

So what's happening to this Valley? Is it as dire a situation as it sometimes seems? Are we really going to end up with four mega-companies: FaceBook, Google, Microsoft and Apple? Because if Google or Microsoft can weasel their way into acquiring Twitter, that's sure how it will seem. If the IPO market continues to be closed, and innovative companies can only knock on doors 1 through 4, that's not a good thing.

I don't claim to have any inside scoop on how big the rock was on that ring you got FriendFeed. I don't know whether you want to keep her a good girl, or lock her away in your closed dungeon. But all I know is that her friends are very scared for her - and we're watching you.

CrunchPad or Apple Tablet? Why I’m Leaning CrunchPad…

Something odd must be in Silicon Valley’s drinking water these days. Not only did I tell you two months ago that I didn’t care what operating system you used, and not only am I typing this on the work-issued Dell laptop, but when thinking about the potential release of Apple’s long-rumored iTouch tablet, I’m not yet saving up my greenbacks and lining up at my nearest Apple Store. In fact, despite the almost equal lack of information, I just might be more likely to buy a CrunchPad, despite its not having Steve Jobs’ official seal of approval.

First of all, in order to purchase a tablet PC (or tablet Mac), I would need to find a use case for it. At times, in fact, the entire tablet market at times seems more of a solution in pursuit of a problem. With my iPhone being such an amazing device, getting me my phone calls, e-mail and mobile Web on the go, and my laptop running all my needed apps, making room for a third “in between” device seems a bit over the top.

That Apple has finally turned the corner on getting its tablet out the door, having met the demanding eye of Jobs, is very interesting. I can see benefits of going with an Apple machine immediately of having the standard Apple look and feel, industrial design, and synchronization of my data, including with the iPhone and iTunes. That’s all good stuff. But I also believe that it would be more expensive than the CrunchPad, which is rumored to be about $200-$300 less per unit, and the early concepts making it look like a giant iPod Touch make it seem as fragile as a china plate. If you thought you got scratches on your iPhone now, or you thought there was an uproar when the G4 Cube got cracks, just wait until your iTouch Grande gets split like a windshield nailed with a rock on the freeway.

So what of the CrunchPad? First of all, its industrial design mockups are equal to, if not better, than the ones I have seen allegedly from Apple so far. The CrunchPad also promises to be lower cost, and forces a new paradigm of being 100% a Web device. Yes, that sounds odd, to praise a machine for effectively limiting what I can do with it. But through those limitations, it makes us think differently (like Apple did) about how we use our electronics gadgets and consume the Web. And it has a side benefit of being from somebody I consider a peer, who is stepping outside of his comfort zone and taking a risk.

Betting on the CrunchPad is a bet for the small upstart challenger, in the same way that betting on Apple once was against Microsoft. And the CrunchPad doesn’t look like it’s going to shatter on impact.

If it’s very simple to use, I could see this low-cost Web-only device (or at least its third version) quite possibly being the first computer for my twins, who may not ever need the suites from Adobe and Microsoft like I have my entire computer-using tenure. A bet on the CrunchPad rewards the idea that bloggers can grow from simply reporting on the news to making the news. Yes, I recognize that Mike Arrington and TechCrunch are already among the most well-known blog networks out there, and have to be considered a success on their own as is, not suffering for dollars, but can you imagine bumping into the guy at a meetup in the Valley, holding the tablet from Apple when his CrunchPad offers the same specs for half the price?

While much has yet to be revealed about both devices, we just might be on the verge of seeing a market-changing event, where there are multiple serious alternatives both arriving at the same time, ostensibly for different buyers. It is quite possible that even if the CrunchPad is a superior, less expensive device, that Apple’s marketing could eat it alive. It’s also quite possible that both could fall short of expectations, or that by choosing one or the other, I could be left with a short-termed albatross. But if I can find a great reason to get a tablet, and both deliver to the specs I’ve seen today, we’re going to be saving a few hundred bucks and buying a CrunchPad. Let my iPhone be my phone and my Mac be my real computer experience, but for this new space, I’m looking for something really new.

PubSubHubbub: Real-Time Feeds and Real-Time Feedback Too?

Getting data from one place to another can never be too fast. Just a year or two ago, the speed of RSS was considered excellent, but now, with latency of RSS feeds getting to destinations such as Google Reader or other networks ranging from minutes to hours, combined with issues related to repeated polling at source sites, teams of talented engineers have taken on these problems, with programs such as FriendFeed's Simple Update Protocol (SUP) and the new PubSubHubbub taking the most-visible route.

PubSubHubbub, an protocol designed as an extension to Atom, is designed to reduce the time for updates to flow from one network to the next to almost zero, and practically eliminates the need for downstream services to constantly ask for the data.

Recently, we learned that a few major players in the feed distribution system had signed on to the PubSubHubbub train. First, last Friday, FeedBurner announced initial support for the service, making it built in for all publishers who had feeds enabled with the PingShot option (myself included). Second, Google Reader integration was demoed at the TechCrunch Realtime Crunchup, if only in prototype form. And third, FriendFeed announced support almost immediately, meaning that if I publish a post here, it should hit both FriendFeed and Google Reader practically in an instant, without any manual updates on my part.

An avid user of both services, the announcements were excellent, but in the last week, I hadn't really seen any difference. Posts made on the blog didn't hit FriendFeed right away and I didn't see updates in Google Reader any more quickly. So I did a test post Wednesday night at 11:11 p.m., titled "PubSubHubbub Test: 11:11 p.m." and nothing happened. Minutes later, I deleted it. But it didn't go unnoticed. After 1 a.m. I got an e-mail from Brett Slatkin, one of the engineers behind the protocol, asking if it had worked. That's right. After 1 a.m., one Google engineer behind this very cool tool cared enough to send me a personal e-mail and make sure all was well.

I said that I hadn't seen it work, and asked if it was, as usual, user error. But I was assured that "Nope you did everything right!" and that as things matured, they would "get the kinks worked out."

This kind of friendly, helpful outreach is the type of very real and personal service that one doesn't expect from big companies like Google, yet it happened, and it was very much appreciated. As I've stated time and again for years here on this blog, anything that can be done to help distribute data further and more quickly I am a big fan of. That I am a big fan of RSS, Google Reader and FriendFeed is no surprise to any of you, and PubSubHubbub looks like it is going to be a major boost to the entire ecosystem.

Just take a look at the test I did again tonight. At 1:08 a.m., a post from a dev server took less than 4 seconds to get from the blog to FriendFeed. (see here) In fact, it was probably faster, but it had already landed before I changed browser windows. Brett may not be "4 seconds" fast, but he's doing a fabulous job engaging with the growing PubSubHubbub community, as you can see from his comments on FriendFeed. This is the way tech and Silicon Valley should be.

Silicon Valley Shutdowns Mean Quieter Business This Week

The global recession has not spared Silicon Valley, or of course, the state of California, which stares in the face of bankruptcy, forced to grapple with an unprecedented budget shortfall. With a statewide unemployment rate exceeding 11 percent, the nexus for much of the world's tech innovation has been severely strained. The unemployment rate for Santa Clara County stands at 10.8 percent, with San Mateo County looking a bit healthier, at 8.1 percent, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In an attempt to reduce fulltime job losses, companies throughout the Valley have turned to every play in the book to reduce costs - stopping and slowing projects, eliminating contractors, reducing pay for both rank and file and executives, forcing vacations, and the ever-popular move of company shutdowns (which we also saw in the 2002-03 recession following the crushing death of the first dot com era).

With Fourth of July looming, this week will see many companies in the Bay Area have their doors closed to non-essential, non-customer support facing employees. Among the known companies shutting down this week are Adobe, Autodesk, NetApp, and a number of other firms, both public and private, who are looking to draw down on company vacation during a time when some employees' thoughts are toward the beach and barbecues.

(See details from Autodesk and one Adobe contractor)

And for those companies that are staying open at a time when their counterparts are sleeping in, there's no doubt many employees are opting to take the week themselves, so you can expect fewer phone calls, reduced Web traffic, and yes, reduced real world traffic as well. So maybe that drive up the peninsula that used to take 45 minutes in morning rush hour just might take 25.

So if you drove into the office today and wondered why you didn't see the usual hustle and bustle, the shutdowns are why. It's a solution that makes the finance guys on one side of the building happy, and possibly the other side of the building isn't complaining much either, with a much-needed respite from the daily grind.

See Also:

• Good People, Bad Companies: The Intersection of Skill and Luck
• Which Companies Will Blink First and Lead Us Out of The Depths?

Know of any other Silicon Valley companies that are taking the week off? Let me know in the comments.

Ten Year TiVo Veteran Talks History, Hacking and Partnerships

About two years ago, I had my first visit to TiVo's headquarters in Alviso, just outside of San Jose. That visit only lasted a few minutes, and gained me a new remote control, replacing an original that had passed on. But on Friday, I had the privilege to stay quite a bit longer, as a guest of Stephen Mack, Director of TiVoCast Operations, as he took me on a quick tour of the company's offices, and we caught lunch, talking about his decade at the DVR pioneer and providing insight into one of Silicon Valley's arguably most interesting companies, sporting an incredibly loyal fan base, which includes me as a member.

Mack joined TiVo from SGI in March of 1999, less than a month before the company's first digital video recorder units were scheduled to ship. As he told me, co-founder Mike Ramsay had made the promise that the units would ship by the end of the first quarter of 1999, pushing the company to practically work around the clock, including nights and weekends, to meet the aggressive goal, making their offering first to market, just ahead of then-rival ReplayTV. This episode of Silicon Valley folklore came despite the fact the company, as he put it, had no working software, no working hardware, and no way to sell the products only weeks before the impending launch. Just squeaking in under the wire, the first units shipped on March 31st of 1999, on a blue moon - which is commemorated on the last Friday of each March each year at TiVo, as "Blue Moon Day" - an official company holiday.


Stephen Mack In His Busy Cubicle at TiVo
In the ensuing decade, TiVo set the gold standard for digital video recorders in an extremely competitive market that saw the term DVR genericized by a stream of copycat providers, including the local cable companies, DISH Network, and an on-again off-again relationship with DirecTV, who helped provide the bulk of TiVo's initial subscriber base, even as the company gained more dollars per subscriber with its native sales. In the most recent year, the company turned a profit of more than $100 million, after years of red ink, that had some declaring a TiVo Deathwatch, not unlike the struggles of Apple Computer just ten years prior.

The linkage of TiVo and Apple is more than just in their role as pioneers, but the pair also feature some of the most loyal customers in technology. The pair is also known for two other facets which gain alternate praise and scorn - including its penchant for secrecy and an adherence to NIH syndrome, well known in the Valley as "Not Invented Here".


TiVo's New Facebook Application, "My TV"
In June of the last year, I openly railed on TiVo to work on creating a social network to try and take advantage of its strong brand and to connect users. (See: TiVo Is a Zero On the Social Web. It's Time They Fast Forward.) And while they still have yet to follow on to my suggestions word for word, they are making strong progress in terms of showing they are actively listening and participating in the social space. The company has launched a little-known Facebook application called "My TV", which invites you to share your favorite shows, see friends' favorites, rate shows and comment on recent episodes. So it's close.

And yes, like all other good marketing companies, they are on Twitter, here: http://twitter.com/tivo. Meanwhile, although Mack doesn't consider himself a TiVo spokesperson, he has responded to blog posts of mine in the past that mention TiVo, and he is active on FriendFeed. In fact, in light of changed television programming in the last few days following the celebrity deaths of Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett, he posted official word from the networks there, in case you needed to make edits to your recording schedule.

Working to grow TiVo is a very interesting business. Steven walked me through the company's need to colocate in highly secure data centers in multiple geographic locations - which would ensure the service's survival, even if the state of California were to off and fall into the ocean. We also talked about the struggles that are common to most OEM businesses, where large partners see every proposed change as a potential for compromise. In particular, he recounted to me the challenge of having DirecTV's huge services team trained when TiVo started to enable broadband updates to their DVRs, in addition to standard phones - and getting the staff ready for practically any kind of modem or broadband issue.


Stephen Mack Checks Potential Issues While at TiVo
The issue of DirecTV came up a few times from others on the Web who knew we were to meet today. First, it is public knowledge that the new DirecTV TiVo boxes are scheduled for the first quarter of 2010. Secondly, the hope that DirecTV units would attain feature parity with the go to market offerings from TiVo just isn't going to happen. Units sold through TiVo will always be the first to support the latest updates, especially as partners will remain conservative.

I also talked with Stephen about the visible hacking community around TiVo's units. My first box, a hand me down, had come with a larger after-market hard drive, a common upgrade. Such modifications violate the company's user agreement of course, but the company knows such activities go on, and some smaller "garage" firms have even built up side businesses to upgrade units, which TiVo has no interest in shutting down. Most of the time, the hacks are harmless, although it was not uncommon in the DVR provider's early days to see customers load Phillips software on Sony boxes and vice versa, introducing issues.

What was shut down, however, at least for now, was the company's Rewards program, that gave TiVo ambassadors points for signing up friends and family, which could be exchanged for TiVo gear and other equipment. It turned out that rather than the program's generating a waterfall of referrals from excited fans, it turned into something of a side business for a handful of individuals, who would buy used units from garage sales, sell them to new buyers and gain activation codes, exchanging them for goods through TiVo. Mack said one such entrepreneur was making enough action that they earned themselves 500 iPods in a year (which they no doubt sold).

In the fast pace of Silicon Valley, a ten year tenure at any one company, especially one that has seen such peaks and valleys as TiVo is a rarity. But Mack says as many as a quarter of the initial 80 people at the company who were there when he joined remain, acting as historians among the company's nearly 500 employees.

The company's offices, tucked away off to the side of Highway 237, neighboring Foundry Networks, Brocade and others, feature the interior bright colors of a typical Valley startup. Its meeting rooms are all named after TV shows, and Mack offered up that he had the bright idea to name one of them, optimistically, "60 Minutes". Meanwhile, outside, even in today's heat, a vigorous basketball game was being played, featuring many of the company's system engineers, who battled in a fullcourt contest of Shirts and Skins. The scene was idyllic enough to want to take out the TiVo remote and hit pause, but I'm just as eager to hit Fast Forward and see what the next several years will bring for the technology pioneer.

Are Authors or Publications Impacting How You Consume the News?

Over the last few years, participating in the tech blogosphere and meeting many of the people who create and report on the tech news we read every day has made the entire process of consuming the news more than simply a passive exercise. While in 2005 or early 2006, I may have imbibed any new posts that come to my RSS reader as manna from heaven, reading every word to find out what was new and interesting, I now find that my own personal interactions with the authors, the publications, or even the story subjects themselves is impacting how I take in the news. And I know I can't get zapped with a mind-eraser like in Men In Black to have it all go away.

Many times, I have told you that Google Reader and FriendFeed are my two major tools for information discovery. On a typical day, north of 600 news items hit my reader, and I spend a few hours clicking through FriendFeed, relying on my social connections to fill the gaps. And, given my need to make a decision, in seconds, as to whether I will read the article, click through, comment or share, I am now finding that the name behind the story is as much an element of that choice as the headline or subject would be, try as I might for that not to happen.

Sometimes, if a big story hits, all the major blogs will write about it in the space of minutes. That means, as FeedBurner and Google Reader go to work, I'll see headlines from ReadWriteWeb, TechCrunch, VentureBeat, CenterNetworks, Mashable and others come in a rapid fire. Sometimes, I will just share the first relevant story I come across, only to find that the second or third version of that story from another author is just a bit better. So do I share both, or should I hit "K", go back to that first share and undo it?

And that's not even getting to the real fun part. As time has gone on, I've gotten to learn pretty much the entire matrix of who likes who in this space. Suffice it to say that not every blogger likes his or her counterpart across the aisle - and I am being watched. I get direct messages on Twitter, or separate e-mails, following my actions, whether I shared one blogger's item on Google Reader instead of another, whether I linked to one person's story and forgot somebody else, or even if I went out of my way to comment on one blog that one guy particularly might not like. Truth be told, there's no good way to come out of the mess smiling and seeing that everyone's happy - because for some, you're either with us, or you're against us, and there's no chance for middle ground.

So as those messages pile up, and my own personal interactions with many of these folks occur, by phone, by e-mail, on podcasts, or on Silicon Valley events, I start to read and share the news, not with the virgin eyes of an excited early adopter tech consumer, but more often one that has to consider the downstream response I might get if I click here, link there, or comment somewhere else. And I see the names flow through next to the headlines, reminding me of their previous stories, good and bad, their arguments, public and private, or even, who is in a relationship with who... because sometimes that news gets around as well.

I'll be honest with you - for the most part, I recognize I have been incredibly lucky in almost every case. Even though I don't have my neck out there, turning this blog into my source of revenue, I've had the chance to shake hands with most of my brand-name counterparts out there. Even those who have gained a reputation for being difficult from others have been good to me. My online interactions and my one phone conversation with Dave Winer were very good. Every single conversation, by phone or in person, I have had with Mike Arrington has been very positive. I clearly have had a solid relationship with Robert Scoble, and fellow bloggers like Jesse Stay, Rob Diana, MG Siegler, Marshall Kirkpatrick, Steve Rubel, Brian Solis, Jeremiah Owyang and others. I trade e-mail often with those who are not nearby geographically, including Steven Hodson, Allen Stern and Duncan Riley, enjoyed my one time on This Week In Tech with Leo Laporte and had a great conversation with Loren Feldman at SXSW in Austin. Largely, the tech blogosphere is a positive community, despite the occasional rumble that threatens to pit friends against friends.

And for that I am grateful. I just wonder if it would ever be possible again to go back to a time when I got really excited about seeing the news for the first time, for its sake, and could eliminate any personal impact that might overlay the story - not needing to wonder if one blog broke an embargo, or wonder why one product got sent to another blog and not me. I wonder also for those who are not as embedded in this space, how they are letting blog brands and authors impact how they take in the news. Are you choosing favorites? Do you see names and titles, and skip right by, or can you see beyond the names and learn what you came for?

Good People, Bad Companies: The Intersection of Skill and Luck

If you have worked at a company that went public or changed the world, you might be given an unfair share of accolades for your part in its success, even if you were actually a pedestrian employee. Similarly, if you happen to have put blood, sweat and tears into an unsuccessful venture, you might be seen as having contributed to that's company's lack of success, or worse, its downfall, giving your resume a black mark. Despite one's best intentions, there is always a strong element of luck in terms of what companies succeed, what products gain share in the market, and, often, if you were hired at the right place at the right time.

In Silicon Valley, the measurement of success and failure can be extremely visible. "Oh. He worked at Google..." says one person in hushed tones to a friend. "And that guy? Let's just say he's on his fourth startup in six years."

But the company name, and the headlines that covered that company's activity over the years, never tell the full story. You don't always know if the person was liked and trusted by their employees. You don't know if they put in 14 hour days or 6 hour days. And you don't know if there was anything they could have done in their role that could have changed the outcome. It's no secret that companies big and small have elite employees, pedestrian employees, and laggards, be they those on the Fortune 500 or ones you've never even heard of.

In a time when the economy is in decline and unemployment is rampant, here and elsewhere, these rapid judgment calls are no doubt having profound effects. How do you explain your way around product failures, hostile takeovers and missed sales quarters? Should the guy whose company chose to go public three months before the market crashed, when yours didn't, giving them $100 million in the bank, and him a nice Mercedes, be considered a better talent than you? Should every former Google employee have a leg up on every former Yahoo! or Ask Jeeves employee, for example?

Watching some industries very closely, it can become clear that people, no matter their role in the organization, will claim the success of their company as their own handiwork. Paraphrasing from a recent release, many of which you've likely seen, a company crowed last month upon getting a new Sales VP, "Prior to joining, (this individual) previously served as a Senior Vice President at (company), where he was responsible for growing sales revenue from $hundreds of millions to $billions." But in the last twelve months, I had actually seen others of this company's alumni report that it was they who had been the driver for the same growth - generating the same similar press release.

Should they all take credit for the same thing, even if one person led worldwide sales, another was a regional area manager, and another oversaw channel efforts in a single territory?

There is something to be said about having been part of a shared experience of success or failure, and learning what to do next, should the opportunity present itself again. In Silicon Valley, where it's well known the vast majority of startups will eventually fail, most of us have two or three companies under our belt that didn't make it. An elite few managed to jump from success to success and not miss a beat. Still others have alternated success with failure, with a healthy mix of effort sprinkled with luck through the process.

It's this knowledge that doesn't get me starry-eyed when I bump into people who played central roles at companies that are household names today - not any more than I look askance at those whose history may be more checkered. All we can do as individuals is deliver our best effort and work to help the company we are at succeed to the level of our abilities. And should that not work, we should take a deep breath, look around, and do it again. Risk is not something to be feared, and with risk always comes the chance that you won't succeed - and it might not always be because of you.

Super Geek Spotted at TechCrunch HQ On a Segway

With today being a day off from the office, I had scheduled to meet up with Daniel Brusilovsky of Teens In Tech for a breakfast meeting in Palo Alto. Despite his 16 year tenure on this planet, I'd heard great things about his aggressiveness and entrepreneurial spirit, and was looking forward to finally connecting.

Not knowing if he would recognize me, I donned a self-promotional louisgray.com shirt, putting fashion aside for the moment.

But as fate would have it, while awaiting Daniel's arrival, I bumped into Michael Arrington of TechCrunch in Palo Alto, who was finishing breakfast at the place Daniel and I had scheduled. Arrington kindly offered us both an invite to see the uber-blog's new office, just a few blocks away, which we accepted.

Unbeknownst to us, the casual invite turned into meet and greet mania. In addition to Arrington's team, including Jason Kincaid, Sarah Lacy, Henry Work, Asad Akbar and CEO Heather Harde, both Robert Scoble and Jason Calacanis stopped by - making the room high on geeks, even if low on furniture (they're still building it out).

As the team is low on furniture, there's plenty of open space - perfect for the new Segway, which arrived this morning. After Daniel managed to break its kickstand in about five minutes, Arrington let me take it for a spin. Surprisingly, it was very easy to run - so if you don't mind seeing what a geek looks like while being geeky at a geek haven... there you go.



Oh... and any rumors that I was there on official business are false. But feel free to spread them.

Is the Valley Too Expensive for Normal People to Launch Startups?

At a morning panel today at the SXSW Interactive conference, titled "Ditch the Valley, Run for the Hills", a great debate was struck between Penelope Trunk of Brazen Careerist and others on the panel, as she argued the high cost of living demanded by Silicon Valley and San Francisco pretty much excluded anybody from starting companies, unless they were 20-something single males. She argued the Valley's "coolness" and access to capital might not deliver enough benefits for shoestring startups trying to get off the ground. The issue of Valley costs was compounded by comments from Mike Maples of Hyper 9, who added his concerns that the state's financial struggles could see dramatic impact the standard of living many of us have taken for granted.

There is no question that over the last few decades, the Valley has gotten a disproportionate share of venture capital. In fact, Maples quoted a recent study that showed 90 percent of venture returns in the last 30 years went to companies founded within 10 miles of either Stanford University or MIT in Massachusetts. And panelist Robert Scoble, now of Rackspace, said the contributing reasons that the Valley attracted startups were three major factors, namely:

1. Access to Capital (Drive Sandhill Road, see 10 VC firms and get your money)
2. Scalability of Web sites (Access to people who have done it before)
3. Tech press (From Mike Arrington and TechCrunch to other tech blogs)

But with the economy changing, and initial rounds for startups dropping from the tens of millions to only two or three million each, the panel said day to day challenges for start-ups could be even more acute, given the reduced access to capital.

Trunk, who is based in the Un-Valley, in Wisconsin, most directly said the process simply isn't doable for people who can't accept risk to their foundation, be it food or rent:

"There is an elephant in the room, about startups," she said. "You are starving and it is super scary, unless you have a trust fund or a previous successful company. In this economy it is very scary. We would have gone under in Silicon Valley because rents are high and there is no safety net in the Valley. Thunk how you can sustain yourself with food and rent before getting your business model."

She later added that only eight percent of companies seeking venture funding are from women, but most are from 20-something men who are single.

Maples, based in Austin, said he recently has been investing in local startups nearby Austin, partly because he would prefer not to travel, but he also voiced concerns about the viability of the Valley, given state budget problems.

"There is also the growing problem of local government," he said. There's a good chance the California government will go bankrupt. The services you take for granted now may not be there two to three years from now, be it education for kids, highways, police and fire support. The nice things you want could progressively change, and that's not true in Texas."

Issues in the Valley don't mean that the San Francisco Bay Area isn't attractive to new companies, of course. The Valley, offering access to capital, people, press and experience, can be an incredible pull. Scoble mentioned Loic LeMeur's Seesmic as one example of a company that moved from Europe to San Francisco and embraced the culture that enabled you to take risks, and fail. Noting that he himself had participated in three startups that have experienced failure, Scoble said Europe entrepreneurs aren't celebrated for their attempted success, but only for their actual success. And many of the panelists cited statistics showing that the venture capital-funded startup was a rarity, and the exception.

"In the valley, failure is accepted, and almost celebrated," Scoble said.

As with most topics here at the conference, the conversation also turned to Twitter. Could Twitter have been started or funded if it hadn't started in San Francisco? Almost universally, the answer was no. Maples even reminded us, "Twitter was a mistake."

Which Companies Will Blink First and Lead Us Out of The Depths?

Graphic via Dreamstime.com
One of the scariest things about the type of economic slowdown we are in today is that it breeds yet more slowdown. If you see the headlines, you can read that as companies anticipate lower revenues and diminished profits, or expanded losses, they are turning to layoffs, and in parallel, reducing their own spending, from program and infrastructure costs, to employee costs. Just this week, for example, HP announced 5 percent pay cuts for its massive salaried employee base, across the board, and the Mercury News reports more than 100 public companies in all industries have reported executive pay cuts since the recession began.

While this helps the company in the immediate term, the ripple effects downstream are quantifiable - which, in my opinion, could make the problems worse.

Assuming lower revenues is one thing. Lowering spending costs impacts all the company's vendors, in reducing their own revenues, spreading the pain around. And of course, reducing the number of paid employees, and reducing the pay to those employees who are left, impacts them such that they are less willing to spend.

It's a high-stakes game of chicken, for if companies expect the market to turn around, and want dollars to flow again, they have to contribute to the economy themselves, and all actions we have recently seen in the press point to companies simply trying to survive what for many is the deepest downturn in memory. But there cannot be survival if every company reduces its spend so that every company downstream, and its employees, fails as well.

During the 2001 to 2003 recession, there were a few bright spots of hope and prosperity here in the Valley, from Google, who rocketed to market-share nirvana in the face of strong competition, to Apple, who rebuilt themselves from a PC company to one built around electronic gadgets and digital sales, following the introduction of the iPod in 2001, and later, the iTunes Music Store, in 2003.

Also during the 2001 to 2003 downturn, government leaders told consumers that the patriotic thing to do would be to open up their wallets and shop - to help keep the economy humming - even as spirits were broken. Of course, the resulting debts and the issues that surround people spending above their means were main contributors to the stark realities we see today, from credit crunches to home foreclosures. But this time, consumers have (hopefully) wisened up, and they are likely more reluctant to spend their way out of this deep recession, especially if they are one of the unfortunate millions who are drawing unemployment benefits or see their bi-weekly paystub reduced.

On this blog, many of the companies and services we talk about have very little to do with capital creation and distribution. Some of the products are fun widgets or sites that enable people to connect in new ways, not so much finding new places to spend money or even have revenue themselves. We recognize that - and hold to the line that for the most part, this blog caters toward early adopters, and it is not necessarily our role to gauge every company's business acumen and prospects - best left to others. But surrounding those people are real businesses with real, tangible products and a real-life balance sheet - and many entrepreneurs and fellow bloggers work for these companies that have been impacted - including some of my peers who write on this site.

Silicon Valley is not immune to this financial crisis. Companies big and small have reduced forecasts and results. Companies big and small have reduced headcount, and many more have reduced their operating expenses, without drawing headlines. Down the food chain, many start-ups have found the VC well to be dry, and will either be shutting down or changing their prospects. But as 90 percent of start-ups fail, this shakeout could violently separate the good ideas from the bad - faster than they had ever desired.

So as practically every business has reacted to the downturn and closed the spigot on spending, which ones will be the first to reverse the trend and say, 'Enough!', instead, taking advantage of competitive weaknesses to seize market share, and approach a more-wary consumer base? We can't sit on our hands and expect Google and Apple to be the names that rise to the top again.

I Don't Care If You Call Me a Fanboy. Steve Jobs Should Be Immortal.

As today's news that Apple CEO Steve Jobs will be taking medical leave from the company through the summer rockets around the Web, many are speculating this will be the last we may ever see of Cupertino's hero. Following the initial news around Macworld Expo that Jobs was going to forego the keynote and had a hormonal imbalance, whispers grew to loud murmurs, saying that Apple needed a backup plan for CEO - and fast - but now that murmuring has become a roaring crescendo. And while I put myself at significant risk at being labeled a fanboy who kneels at the multi-colored altar, I have to express how losing Jobs for more than a few months will be a significant blow, not just to Apple and its customers, but to Silicon Valley and the world at large.

No doubt in part due to my recent birth, I practically grew up using Apple computers. And even while Windows grew in market share, I saw their interface as a shoddy misappropriation of Apple's intellectual property. As Apple swirled near the drain in the late 1990s, while some mocked the company and called it beleaguered, I huddled among the seeming few fanatics we had left and declared that we would never give up. It was us against the world.

Jobs' return to Apple was curious at first. It was supposed to have been temporary. He vowed he would never be the CEO at Apple Computer, and speculation as to a full-time holder of the role was widespread. But, luckily for us all, he pulled a Dick Cheney (think 2000 VP candidates) and appointed himself. And the rest, as they say is history. He made Apple not just an also-ran in the computer business, but a major force for innovation. He brought color to a drab world. He worked with very conservative businesses and found ways to launch the iPod, the iTunes Music Store, and eventually, the iPhone.

With Jobs at the helm, Apple took the very boring world of MP3 players and cell phones and made them exciting again - and you only have to take a look at the Microsoft Zune, Sony's failed Walkman MP3 player line, and phones from Nokia to see what the industry has tried to do in Apple's wake.

As I wrote during the last round of speculation, I Will Teach My Children About Steve Jobs, I don't intend to tell them about Steve Jobs as you would a cultural icon of yesteryear, but instead because he helped to spur innovation and imagination. The idea of an Apple without Steve Jobs, or a computer industry without Steve Jobs is alarming. Yes, younger entrepreneurs like those running Google and Facebook have lapped Apple in some areas and are forging interesting new products, but there is only one Steve Jobs.

Apple has always taken significant pride in how it uses its vast mountain of cash and its R&D budget. The very best use of said funds would be to first, solve Jobs' medical issue, whatever it is, and later, move on to see if he can be made immortal. This isn't a shifty Bill Gates or a sweaty, rotund, Steve Ballmer we are talking about here. This is the one and only Steve Jobs, who has cared about creativity, education, and users above everything else. The idea of a computer industry without Apple and without Steve Jobs should mortify us all.

June cannot come soon enough. I hope that is truly as long as we will be waiting.

Does a Service Need a Business Model to Have You as a Customer?

Yesterday, following on to our discussion from earlier in the month on what further efforts FriendFeed could make to attract and keep new users, a commenter wrote:

"I'm a little nervous about investing a lot of time and effort in, or become reliant on, a product that has no business model - whether it's FriendFeed or Twitter. Sure it has plenty of VC money, but who knows when they'll pull the plug."

Given the uncertainty we've all seen in the greater business market, and with Silicon Valley in particular, there is no question that some Web services are in dicey positions. Pownce recently closed after its acquisition by Six Apart, and users weren't given a whole lot of time to extract their information. So, for some, it makes sense not to take a risk with their time and their data.

I tend to be of the opinion that as consumers, we should use those products that give us the best experience, community or enable us to do things that no other sites do. I feel that it's not typically our role to choose what sites are going to be successful and which ones are not. We don't always know the financial underpinnings of a company. We can't forecast whether something will succeed or fail. And often, if you like a product, so will many others like you, meaning that if the time comes to eventually shut the site down, there will be a buyer, and more likely than not, the service, and your data, will be retained.

As much fun as it can be for us to try and predict if Twitter will go mainstream, and much of the conversation in the echo chamber today was around the company's hiring of a new business development manager, seen as the first step toward getting revenue, I don't really care all that much what these companies' business models are - so long as my data isn't being sold or manipulated, or ads don't obscure the product itself. But that's my less conservative side showing - and maybe my position is wrong.

Have you ever liked a product, but steered clear of it because you didn't want to get attached in the event you might later have a costly breakup?

Blog in the Dark Much?

Just before 7:30 this evening, as we were putting the twins down to sleep, the lights fluttered and went out. They whirred to life again, twice, but soon dropped again, and we've pretty much been in the dark for the better part of two hours. No TV. No WiFi. Not even the background noises of the refrigerator and heater. With temperatures in the low 40s outside, our home is cooling, and we've unpacked the flashlights and candles we could find.

Did you know you can combine a C battery and a D battery in a flashlight, and it will still work? By necessity, I found out tonight that it does.

Preferring to be constantly connected, my iPhone 3G is keeping me sane. The laptops are fairly useless, but not my ubergadget. It still lets me post updates to Twitter and FriendFeed, browse bookmarks, and read e-mail. Nobody told it to shut down, after all.

Losing power is really no big deal, for the short term. Everyone is safe, and if this goes longer, we could pluck our twins from the cooling crib, and warm them up ourselves. But it's got me thinking about being better prepared for something bigger. It's now clear we need more batteries. And the whole hubbub about Twitter being a good news hub during emergencies doesn't hold too well if you lack power. And it doesn't translate well to the small screen. If a neighbor has discovered the source or reach of this outage, I haven't seen it. My network is too diverse and too noisy to get data on local happenings.

So for now, we're a little disconnected. It's dark. It's getting colder. And we don't have answers. I'm lucky to have the iPhone 3G around, but that aside, the infrastructure holding our power and Web together looks pretty flaky - even in Sunnyvale, smack dab in Silicon Valley proper.

Update: Power was restored shortly after 10 p.m., having been out for just under three hours. No cause has yet been determined.

Ten Tech Things I'm Thankful For

I don't know about you, but some of the technology we take for granted still seems exciting and mysterious to me. Ever stop in the middle of your laptop and say - wow... I'm seeing streaming video, live, wirelessly in high quality? Ever stop when on a cell phone and realize you're talking to someone thousands of miles away and hearing them respond in real time? It may seem like we take these things for granted, and only speak up when there are problems, but that's far from the truth. On this Thanksgiving holiday, I thought I'd highlight ten things I'm grateful for that impact us in a positive way.

1) I'm Thankful for a Competitive Culture of Curiosity

Without curiosity and aggressive competition, innovation would be at a near stand-still. Experimentation, testing and looking for new markets or way to improve existing markets or products enables new ideas to develop, and new approaches to be found for existing products and activity. In Silicon Valley, entrepreneurialism is encouraged and celebrated, and it's actually okay to fail or work at a failed company multiple times in one's career, so long as you keep trying.

2) I'm Thankful for Expanding Bandwidth and Data Storage

Any of us can look backward at our first computers, and modems, and laugh at how many megabytes of RAM or hard disk space we had, or how we might have tried to get to the Internet at 4-digit baud speeds. Over the decades, you've seen a move on the network side from 10 megabit to 100 megabit, through 10 gigabit on the corporate side, and to high-speed broadband for consumers, not to mention 3G for iPhones and other wireless gadgets. Hard disks have grown from megabytes to gigabytes and now terabytes, enabling higher quality images, video, music and other data exchanges to take place quickly and be stored longer. The growth of bandwidth and data storage has essentially paved the way for the online software repositories, iTunes, YouTube and many other intensive Web apps that are powering today's digital economy.

3) I'm Thankful for The Removal of Geographic Barriers

We may have to get a passport to travel from country to country, but online, I'm talking and engaging with people from around the globe every day. While places like the Silicon Valley still maintain a lead in terms of available networking opportunities, the Web lets me connect with entrepreneurs in Europe, bloggers in Australia, India, and Canada, or around the world. In fact, just a few weeks ago I managed to reach Robert Scoble by cell phone when he was traveling in China, as I'd mistakenly thought he'd already come home. While it would take a day of travel to see him, I could get him live with a few taps on the iPhone. Also, I've befriended people from a wide variety of countries and places around the United States on the myriad of social networks.

4) I'm Thankful for the Ease of Publishing

The Web has dramatically increased the potential to publish in real-time over the last few years. For free, I can register to send short updates to Twitter, or full-length blog posts to Blogger, WordPress or TypePad. There is no application to fill out, or editorial board to approve content. The ease of publishing lets anyone with a voice or something to share get out there quickly to all interested to see.

5) I'm Thankful for the Ease of Discovery

There's a reason Google is thought of as the most successful company of our generation. They focused on the ease of searching and discovery of all the world's information - starting with the World Wide Web at large, and expanding to images, videos, books, news, and trying to ease discovery across different languages with translation tools. Google, and others, expanded to desktop search and discovery to let you find even your own documents. This ease of discovery speeds academia and business, and lets even the most obscure opinions or publications be found, assuming you're on topic and the searcher uses the right keywords.

6) I'm Thankful for the Ease of Data Mobility

Yesterday, I saw a road sign saying "5 1/4 miles" to our destination, and it reminded me of the old 5 1/4" floppy disks, which gave way to 3 1/2" floppy disks, Zip drives, USB keys, and of course, attachments by e-mail, which negated the need for much of the portable physical media. Now, I know that my data is accessible from the Web on essentially any computer or mobile device, no matter where I am. All my e-mail accounts flow to the iPhone. All my bookmarks are synched from my home computer to the iPhone, and I can log into any of my online accounts from any computer to pull down my data or get my personal experience.

7) I'm Thankful for the Ease of Access to People

The combination of the ease of publication and discovery makes it easier than ever to find ways to contact people, by phone, by e-mail, or through social networks where they are active. The old days of the Yellow Pages and White Pages and Blue Pages that you needed to thumb through to find local businesses or your neighborhood directory are gone, replaced by personal address books that stay on your computer and cell phone, and online directories that are searchable. Additionally, those who publish are often easily reachable, even if just through comment pages on their site, giving you a platform for conversation and exchange.

8) I'm Thankful for the Opportunity to Exchange Ideas

Nobody is an expert on everything, but just about everyone is an expert on something. Where I have weaknesses, or limited understanding, it is fairly easy now to find resources or individuals who have strength, and who are open to discussion. Combined with the ease of discovery and publication, rather than posting items here and waiting for people to answer, I can go to these sources and engage with them where they want to engage at their point of comfort - be it on their preferred social network, their blog, their user forum or bulletin board.

9) I'm Thankful for the Acceptance and Promotion of Standards

As technology consumers, we have our idiosyncrasies. I may prefer to use Mac OS X computers, and use the Safari Web browser. You may prefer Windows Vista, and like Internet Explorer or Firefox. But, in theory, our Web experience should be the same. While there was a time when Mac documents and PC documents or Mac formatted disks and PC formatted disks were wildly different and non-transferrable, both platforms have practically unified so documents and applications are largely equivalent on all platforms and an experience can be universal. The acceptance of standards for all things on the Web, from the GIF and JPEG standards to those for HTML, Java, CSS and PHP, ensure that Web sites and applications can increasingly behave appropriately and within guidelines, regardless of the consumer's setup and geography. While I know things could still improve, the community has made incredible strides in pursuing unity.

10) I'm Thankful for Never Accepting the Status Quo as Good Enough

Where much is given, much is expected. As Web bandwidths increase, as disk storage increases, as ease of access increases, and the number of people getting on the Web and using it for all aspects of commerce, friendship, and communication increases, the capability of each site and application gains the potential for improvement. And I've yet to meet a site or an application that simply stops working, saying they have stopped all bugs, and that the experience could not possibly get any better. Google is constantly improving and experimenting with their search index and results. Microsoft and Apple are constantly rolling out new iterations to their operating systems, their applications and their Web browsers. And startups are always coming and going, not just in an effort to make the people working there some money, but because they want to make a real difference through leveraging the cutting edge of technology.

As a consumer and as someone who for more than a decade has worked in Silicon Valley, looking to help develop and distribute differentiated products that aid customers, I know I will never accept what we have as good enough. But I appreciate the opportunity to exchange ideas, to reach new people, to discover new content and to publish where I can. That's part of what's enabled exchanges such as this. What are you thankful for in the world of technology and what do you believe I left out?

Incredible Web Efforts Made to Shield Victims of Santa Clara Shooting

Note: I recognize this is an extremely sensitive issue, and one that continues to develop, so the words I use here are measured. Condolences to all affected by this horrible incident.

On Friday, as you most likely know, an employee of Santa Clara-based SiPort, who had lost his job that morning, returned to the office and took the lives of three of his former colleagues, the CEO, VP of Operations and head of human resources. In such a difficult economic climate as we are facing now, many saw the horrible incident as one emblematic of the tough times. Michael Arrington of TechCrunch called it "a Sad Day in Silicon Valley." Knowing the startup culture well, and living in Sunnyvale, neighboring Santa Clara, I've been watching the story, and was somewhat relieved to learn tonight that the alleged perpetrator had been brought into custody, having been captured in Mountain View.

The human tragedy here, when taken out of the macroeconomic view, is devastating. The three lives were not statistics or meant to be examples. These were people with families, with jobs and goals, people who were taken from the Earth way too soon, and in a horrific way.

But as information consumers, looking to learn as much as we could about this incident as news developed, to be both informed, and alert, as the suspect was not apprehended until this evening, it has been interesting to see how much effort has been taken to reduce the information available to the public in terms of learning about the company or the victims themselves. Almost immediately, on Friday night, SiPort shut down all pages of its Web site, with the exception of the main page, including hiding the management page. And today, the entire site itself is empty (unless you view the Google cache).

With today's Web world leaning toward one of transparency and posting copious amounts of information, it's no surprise that the victims of the shooting had created online profiles, including on the career-oriented site of LinkedIn. VP of Operations Brian Pugh and human resources lead Marilyn Lewis, who lost their lives Friday, had posted online resumes. (Pugh, Lewis)


The Mercury News' Early Version Cited LinkedIn as the Source
In fact, it was via LinkedIn that reporters garnered much of their data on the victims themselves. An early version of a story in the San Jose Mercury News stated, "Lewis, who lived in a San Jose, worked at NeoScale Systems before joining SiPort in November. 2006. In a LinkedIn profile, she wrote," but in a subsequent filing of the story, this piece was amended instead to say, "In an online profile, she wrote."


Subsequent Updates Did Not Mention LinkedIn
Just past Midnight on Sunday morning, LinkedIn's Web site is down, so it's not clear if the online career site has been asked to either take down or modify their profiles, but the effort by the Mercury News to remove the reference to LinkedIn in their article seems to have been done to discourage curious Web viewers from further invading the deceased's data. The way in which these victims lost their lives is well outside of the focus of Mike Fruchter's Mashable article from last month, What Happens to Our Social Profiles After We Die?, but the data we do post on the Web about our home, work and hobbies is something that cannot be hidden, or erased, even after we might be gone.

(Update: LinkedIn is back up, and both profiles still are there, without changes)

The incident is horrible, and very close to home, geographically, as well as in terms of understanding the issues of stress, strife with colleagues and the demands one's career can place on the rest of your life. I also understand the desire for families to want privacy and for news media and others to be extremely sensitive to the victims, but to pull the data, or make it more difficult to learn about the human side of this tragedy may make it more difficult to relate to, not less. It is also very interesting to see how efforts are made to pull data and have it disappear from a Web that is built to not lose it.