I came across a posting today about the 9 VCs You’re Gonna Want to Avoid and found it both hysterical as well as scary. If you have ever worked on starting up your own company, know any founders who have, been involved in raising money, or know a single VCs you will instantly recognize a few of these archetypes…a few rang clear and true for me.
The author’s other posts on How to Work the Room and 8 Tips on How to Get Mentored are some other great reads.
Tags: Venture Capitalists
I am glad to announce that the rumors of my blogging demise are not true. The past few weeks have had me heads down on a customer project; I have been working with a Fortune 100 financial institution on a project involving a enterprise SOA initiative.
The good news is that there are numerous lessons to be learned (and shared) from this project. The bad news is that the timing of the project correlated with other things going on and resulted in me having less than no time for some items in my life (like contributing to this blog).
I appreciate everyone’s patience while I get my head back above water.
Tags: Updates
Wow! That’s what I said this morning as I noticed the changes that occurred over the past 24 hours in the Technorati graph that I included in my previous posting. Exactly 24 hours ago, that graph showed a little over 1,000 mentions of the new Apple iphone, now it has skyrocketed to about 21,000 mentions. I guess I underestimated the speed at which either
Either way, after spending a few minutes jumping between blogs this morning to validate my hype-pothesis, I’m sitting here writing this with a small smirk on my face. Way too many of the blog entries fit square into my general hypester category (Apple’s Marketing teams must be very smug right now knowing that people are spending hours building cardboard iphones…).
Amazing thing about hype, how it can be used to distract you from what is really going on (I think that is a parallel to the De Tocqueville model). So, Mr. Jobs…how is that stock option backdating investigation coming along?
Tags: Hype, iPhone, Marketing, Opinion, Technology Industry
As I write this, it is exactly 24 hours since Steve Jobs gave his keynote address at the 2007 MacWorld conference. By now, the word has spread like wild fire about the iphone (oh yea, and that other thing Steve announced too…). I did a search on Technorati this morning at exactly 9:00am PST for “iphone”. This search revealed 55,035 blog entries that featured the word “iphone”.
My plan was to use this 24 hour period to highlight a point that has been bothering me lately. That point being how much hype powers the blog-o-sphere. What I expected to find were tens of thousands of blog postings about the iphone that hit within the past 24 hours. I was surprised to find that in reality there were only a little over 1000 blog postings. (Side Note to Technorati…how about adding the ability to search for blog entries based upon date of posting…I was astounded to see that your advanced search didn’t contain this option!) Most of the blog entries were pre-announcement hype about the iphone. Here is a chart from Technorati for posts that contain Iphone per day for the last 30 days.
Digging a little deeper, I did a Google search for “+blog +iphone“. 2.38M hits as of this morning. I’m mentioning both sets of statistics as it is still hard to find any type of statistics with regards to blog postings that don’t have accuracy issues of one type or another…
Surprising to me was how long the iphone hype was spinning out there in the ether…especially the spike right before Christmas. Generally speaking, I don’t become obsessive compulsive about tracking and contributing to the hype (I see it as being as fruitful in the long term and as stressful in the short as day trading stocks…I’m working on reducing the stress in my life, not increase it). So while I heard rumors about the Apple cell phone, I never really cared enough about to give it a second thought.
And Hype was the point I was hoping to make using the iphone as an example. How the content of the blog-o-sphere is so skewed in the direction of hype. Unfortunately, it is so hard to gauge the amount of solid content that exists in the blog-o-sphere in comparison to the hype..this measurement is subjective anyway. (I sense a tangent post coming soon about what the true value of the blog-o-sphere…). There is solid content out there, but like anything precious, you have to work to find it.
Yes, I know…I’m not the first by a long shot to make this point…but this thought has been swirling around in my head for a while, so this is just my way of working through the thought and getting it out.
I look at the hype as coming from two sources: general hypesters and professional hypesters:
General Hypesters
How many times have you seen a blog entry that contains less than a paragraph of content? And usually that same blog entry is just talking about a blog entry that some other person wrote. It’s almost like there is this compulsive need in people to be the first one on the record to say something, regardless of the value of what they are saying. I could spin down a path of analysis of the ego here, but I’m not a qualified psychiatrist (but if someone is looking for a thesis topic…). My hypothesis is that these general hypester bloggers become flashes in the pan, quickly having their interest being pulled in some other direction. This is the reason you find so many blog titles in use but abandoned on the free blogging sites…you go to the blog and find the most recent posting being over a year old.
Some of General Hypesters get a small or medium sized following (I’m being vague here on purpose), place a few Google ads on their blog and just keep on churning out the hype as long as the advertising revenue keeps flowing in. (ever notice all those magazines at the checkout isle of your grocery store?)
The net-net of my description for general hypesters is the fact that their content is not adding any real value but only adding to the chaff that is flying through the air.
Professional Hypesters
These are the guys who tend to be the fan that starts all the chaff flying in the first place. They can be people who have migrated from the trade rags to the blog-o-sphere, or they could be people who are secretly writing for a company or organization to help create the hype. Sometimes they are just people stating their opinion that build a big following. Follow the source of the general hypesters and their postings will refer back to the professional hypesters.
Occasionally they will be openly employed for and by the company or organization they are creating the hype about. Many company sponsored blogs are purposely not hype machines (my current company included). Sure, they all tend to have some bend of marketing and opinion guiding to them with regards to what the company does, but that’s true about all blogs (and a lot of “reporting”) today. The small percentage that aren’t are blatantly or inadvertently hype machines.
One example I can think of most recently is the “SNAFU” that a small software company out of Washington state made (they have gotten enough air cover out of it, so I’m being vague on purpose). They gave fancy laptops out to bloggers in the hope of the bloggers would write about the new version of the companies software and the fancy laptops. They said in essence ‘keep the laptops’. A day or two later they retracted that statement and said ‘we meant that you should preferable give the laptop away or send it back or keep it’. There was more blog entries about the retraction that there were about the review of the software! (and a lot of them were by the general hypesters)
Was this planned by the company or just an accident? Either way they got a lot of air cover out of it.
My Point
My point was just to state my opinion about how much Hype is out there in the technology industry. I’m hoping that I get you to think about what you’re reading a bit more by putting on your critical thinking hat. Is this something of usefulness or is it just hype? The obvious ones (general hypesters) are easy to spot. The professional hypesters are not always as easy…that’s why they are professionals.
Should we be concerned about the hype in the technology industry? Absolutely. We all remember the internet bubble. Look around, how many other bubbles do we see out there today?
(I’m focusing this on technology industry related hype. If by the end of this you’re thinking this only applies to the technology industry, consider getting yourself a better hat…)
Tags: Hype, iPhone, Marketing, Opinion, Technology Industry
Dictionary.com defines protectionism as such:
pro·tec·tion·ism [pruh-tek-shuh-niz-uh
m] –noun
1. Economics. the theory, practice, or system of fostering or developing domestic industries by protecting them from foreign competition through duties or quotas imposed on importations.
…
This is the phrase that came to my mind a few days ago when I read the article about Microsoft’s Linux Support Subscriptions. Microsoft and Novel have teamed up and are brandishing the Microsoft patents at the technology community in an effort to stem the incoming tide of the open source community and fear of possible outgoing tide of revenue. Novel has struck a deal with Microsoft to have Microsoft bless the SuSE Linux Enterprise Server (essentially saying that SLES has no unlicensed Microsoft technology in it…any Microsoft-ish technology that is there is now licensed). Microsoft is also hinting (not so subtly) that they might sue anyone who may have unlicensed Microsoft IP (or something that might look like Microsoft IP) in their open source projects. This then causes a ripple effect to commercial providers who may include open source components in their products (like Apple’s OS X) and the business who use these open source and commercial products. (sniff, sniff…do I smell SCO in the air?)
As a business person, I’m a strong proponent of IP protection and patent law. But eventually in a complicated soup like the technology industry, where stuff has to work together and interoperate, there needs to be some consideration of the best interest of the customer. Throw the open source ingredient into the pot and you get technology vendors who don’t believe or understand the open source movement looking for ways to protect their interests (i.e., revenue streams).
This is nothing new in the wider economic sense. All you have to do is do a Google news search for protectionism. You get examples ranging from the US government’s protectionism of the US Ports to the EU’s protectionism of sportswear imported into the union. The underlying goal of each of these examples is to protect one group form changes that are occurring in the larger world. There are lots of social and economic reasons that can be given for why the protectionism is needed, but the real reason is anchored in the fact that it’s hard for people to change. And in today’s change accelerating world, it’s only getting more and more difficult.
The technology field has been going through it’s own core changes for the past five to six years. The over spending of the bubble years led to the cost cutting and maturity of the use of IT within business. Large IT “deals” started to decline; programmers who were lured into the cycle of self-destructive levels of work and productivity for the false hopes of quick wealth started to turn their energies to the altruistic endeavor of open source development; businesses started to see real value and security in the open source projects.
A technology company is no different than a person…change is hard. Many companies fail because they either don’t change when they need to or early enough, or they don’t change fast enough. Then look at the biggest, they can delay the change through the use of their legal armies. Figure out a way to use the legal system against those that are causing the change. Boost your own declining revenue streams by instilling fear in your customers (all customers love vendors for doing that…ever hear of a license audit?). The move by Microsoft and Novell is nothing more than technology protectionism.
So Microsoft is scared. Windows Vista hasn’t been going as smoothly as they need it to. All of the cool features it was supposed to have have almost all disappeared due to technical difficulties of implementing them in the hodgepodge of legacy code. Apple’s computer and OS popularity has grown. Deja vu with the Firefox browser’s popularity continuing to grow. Another 800 pound gorilla by the name of Google has been invading it’s part of the jungle for a while now. How is the company going to keep or grown it’s 28% profit margin in order to keep another 800 pound gorilla (the street) happy? Release the IP lawyers.
An so business start to protect their own self interests and pay into the protectionism scheme. Of course these business need to save face themselves, so they change the name of the scheme 180 degrees from protectionism to interoperability. Wouldn’t you do the same if you had a well funded ($34B) army of lawyers marching toward you?
I just don’t buy this spin that this deal is about making Linux and Windows more interoperable. If that was the case, there are open standards that Linux has supported from it’s inception that Microsoft could start to fully support (interoperability is about more than just two companies products). This is all about Microsoft protectionism. I think the pressure that Microsoft is feeling is greater than what the general press is talking about (personal opinion). Rather than trying to inovate their way out problems they face with the changing technology marketplace, they are taking the protectionism route. Beat up on the marketplace by threatening to sue unless they buy a Linux License from Microsoft.
I’m calling shenanigans on this use of the De Tocqueville model.
Tags: Linux, Microsoft, Novel, Open Source, Protectionism
