Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for September, 2009

There’s an amazing thing going on.  It’s a small little product release that few folks outside of the techworld cover.  The release and tech uproar over Google Chrome Frame.

Why do I say this?  Oh, well, some folks at Google woke up and realized there are such things as platform dependencies and you pick the platform that makes it efficient to produce and distribute your product.  So… it produced a WRAPPER for the platform most widely distributed (windows/IE) AND reduced its dev costs (produce a runtime that runs on anything.).

We could continue in this fashion, but using Google Chrome Frame instead lets us invest all that engineering time in more features for all our users, without leaving Internet Explorer users behind,” argued Lars Rasmussen and Adam Schuck of Google’s Wave team last week.

Beyond Google making such an aggressive move to stash Chrome inside IE as a stab at Microsoft, this move demonstrates  that BROWSERS determine a BIG PART of business on the Internet.  Netscape was right, just way too early.  The browser is the new OS – both in user function and business line.    All the players are pitching users on various propositions.  Do you care about security? compatibility?  native software?  cool features?  It can be bought, sold, and managed just like any other piece of commercial software.  The browsers are not immune to real business.  The require real capital to build and real support to maintain.  Firefox is hanging on… but how long does it have with its main benefactors producing competitive products and forging competitive alliances?

Basically, the browser as a community project – Free Software Thing – is losing ground to browser as front door to lots of revenue.

It’s well known, and extremely frustrating, to many software vendors that whatever ships with the computer is what wins and trying to get a mass of users to install the platform is a losing battle.  As a result Google is trying very hard to make Android and Chrome OS a default shipping system, but it’s not there yet.    If Google is to ever grow as big as MSFT it MUST own the default software on the majority of systems.

I predict eventually Google has to ship hardware – perhaps in deep partnerships (tmobile MyTouch with Google is just the beginning).  It will definitely start shipping Google branded hardware that has Google OS and Google search, Google apps capable of doing real work and real entertainment.   Apple, PC Makers, Cell Carriers and others will divorce Google slowly over time as Google takes more and more of their core business.

As a very interesting side note…. the biggest eyeball engine every created still doesn’t have enough advertising revenue growth to power long term business growth.  That’s right… SELLING ACTUAL STUFF IS STILL WHERE BUSINESS LIES.  Just hawking someone else’s stuff isn’t enough…. and so it goes.

Welcome, Internet, to long term business.  Reality bites.

OR

Maybe I’m completely wrong and this helter-skelter game of pushing open source and community projects strategically can disrupt competitors enough to keep growing and further distribute the Google eyeball engine… hmmmm….

Read Full Post »

Though TIME completely misrepresents the article with the title of this piece the article is quite nice.  Most of the findings are quite straightforward and the utility of the article is that it does a nice job of illustrating how genetics and learning combine to explain behavior (and “intelligence”).

Here’s a nice example from the article:

Once dogs became comfortable in our company, humans began to speed up dogs’ social evolution. They may have started by giving extra food to helpful dogs–ones that barked to warn of danger, say. Dogs that paid close attention to humans got more rewards and eventually became partners with humans, helping with hunts or herding other animals. Along the way, the dogs’ social intelligence became eerily like ours, and not just in their ability to follow a pointed finger. Indeed, they even started to make very human mistakes.

A team led by cognitive scientist Josef Topál of the Research Institute for Psychology in Hungary recently ran an experiment to study how 10-month-old babies pay attention to people. The scientists put a toy under one of two cups and then let the children choose which cup to pick up. The children, of course, picked the right cup–no surprise since they saw the toy being hidden. Topál and his colleagues repeated the trial several times, always hiding the toy under the same cup, until finally they hid it under the other one. Despite the evidence of their eyes, the kids picked the original cup–the one that had hidden the toy before but did not now.

To investigate why the kids made this counterintuitive mistake, the scientists rigged the cups to wires and then lowered them over the toy. Without the distraction of a human being, the babies were far more likely to pick the right cup. Small children, it seems, are hardwired to pay such close attention to people that they disregard their other observations. Topál and his colleagues ran the same experiment on dogs–and the results were the same. When they administered the test to wolves, however, the animals did not make the mistake the babies and dogs did. They relied on their own observations rather than focusing on a human.

There are a few mistakes in this article and/or researcher’s thinking though.

One question the research of Topál, Hare and others raises is why chimpanzees–who are in most ways much smarter than dogs–lack the ability to read gestures. Hare believes that the chimps’ poor performance is one more piece of proof that the talent is rooted not in raw intelligence but in personality. Our ape cousins are simply too distracted by their aggression and competitiveness to fathom gestures easily. Chimps can cooperate to get food that they can’t get on their own, but if there’s the slightest chance for them to fight over it, they will. For humans to evolve as we did, Hare says, “We had to not get freaked out about sharing.”

This paragraph is a bit misleading.  There isn’t this thing called Personality.  The same mechanisms at play in dog behavior, pertain to primates too.  Evolution and learning shape the chimps behavior, just differently than humans and/or dogs.  In reading articles like this it’s important to sift out the trap words like mind, personality, “human nature”, and intelligence.

All in all though, and enjoyable piece.

Now back to football….

Read Full Post »

Having myself dug through at least 30 companies traffic and sales data over the last decade I agree with these Wharton researchers.

The Wharton researchers also disagree with Anderson’s theory and its implicit challenge to the Pareto principle, or so-called 80-20 rule, which in this case would state that 20% of the movie titles generate 80% of sales. Anderson argues that as demand shifts down the tail, the effect would diminish. Using Netflix data, Netessine and Tan show the opposite — an even stronger effect, with demand for the top 20% of movies increasing from 86% in 2000 to 90% in 2005.

The most overlooked part of the long tail is that it typically only applies to “power users”.  The researchers correctly note that even though retailers and media companies can offer endless digital goods, they actually need to find a way to introduce consumers to the long tail goods.  And new users/new consumers/new customers typically gravitate/are pushed into the top shelf items (yet again keeping the Pareto principle alive and well).

The Wharton researchers find that the Long Tail effect holds true in some cases, but when factoring in expanding product variety and consumer demand, mass appeal products retain their importance. The researchers argue that new movies appear so fast that consumers do not have time to discover them, and that niche movies are not any more well-liked than hits.

According to Netessine, the Long Tail effect may be present in some cases, but few companies operate in a pure digital distribution system. Instead, they must weigh supply chain costs of physical products against the potential gain of capturing single customers of obscure offerings in a rapidly expanding marketplace. Companies, they add, must also consider the time it takes for consumers to locate off-beat items they may want.

What’s more damning than all these reports and books is actually trying to run a business on the long tail.   I have a lot of experience in trying to do this from search engines to video sites to offline and online retail – the long tail isn’t viable to most businesses.  Consumers just don’t consume that way and products (digital or otherwise) aren’t all created equal (hits are hits for a reason…)

The Long Tail is a powerful marketing message.  It helps start ups justify ridiculous valuations. It helps search engines entice niche advertisers.   It speaks to power users who want to think they are cool.   It’s very much like what happens on Wall Street – economists and financial wizards invent a theory that SELLS their product or service.  These concepts are wrapped up as theory to legitimize them but in the end they are just a sales tactics.  A more advanced version of One Minute Millionaire type books (“buy this book and you can make a million dollars!… for me!)

Anderson did make some of these points in his original article.  He suggests that companies that are long tail and hit sales seem to be best.

By contrast, the success of Netflix, Amazon, and the commercial music services shows that you need both ends of the curve. Their huge libraries of less-mainstream fare set them apart, but hits still matter in attracting consumers in the first place. Great Long Tail businesses can then guide consumers further afield by following the contours of their likes and dislikes, easing their exploration of the unknown.

Let’s be clear though.  LONG TAIL doesn’t exist as a physical reality.  Consumers behave.  Retailers attempt to shape the behavior. … it’s about attending to various consumer behavior sets: the power users vs. new consumers vs. casual consumers.   If you only attend to power consumers  it’s hard to grow big enough to be a mass market leader (if that’s your goal).   If you focus only on hits and new consumers, you’ll never gain long term traction.  It’s pretty obvious why… the hits drive general consumer knowledge.  the long tail products have to be uncovered slowly.  Most media impressions go to hits (so the mass marketing is geared towards hits) because of the positive ROI against media spends.  The hits marketing is arbitraged into long tail products. and so on.  (for data proof just go look at the advertising spend globally…)

“Such is the power myth of the Long Tail. Its time has come gone.”

Read Full Post »

Damn.  Dead Boys, by Richard Lange, is one crazy collection of short stories. 

(I came into this book by way of the Small World books employee, Phil.  Good choice, Phil!)

Dead boys is definitely edgy.  Essentially it’s a collection of raw, LA based short stories mostly about down-and-out folks who sometimes dip into criminal activity (though I wouldn’t call them criminals…).  It’s strangely dead on about LA even though it seems very over the top at times.  Behind closed doors many people really do lead over the top existences – we all tend to clean up well in public – and Lange has masterfully given us a non-intrustive nor creepy peephole to see behind the scenes.

What makes this collection special is that it doesn’t moralize.  it is stories.  it is what it is.  no right, no wrong – just existence.   no justification for these characters or their behavior.  I related to the complexity of just living life and how hard it is to put the pieces together.

I know my book reviews rarely bash a book nor give some brilliant literary criticism.  I’m not going to do it in this case either.  I think this book is very enjoyable and provocative.  Here are few “gotchas”.  The prose is raw and changes from story to story.  Perhaps that’s not your cup of tea.  It’s all based in LA.  If you’ve never been to LA you might not get all the nuances but you certainly will get a sense of the shadowy parts of LA and the idea that everyone here is chasing something.

Summer is over, but that doesn’t mean good summer reading has to end.  Get this book to smack your sensibility around a bit.  lemmeknow what you think.

Read Full Post »

Here’s my top 10 most pressing questions in life.

  1. Can you be satisfied and functional AND integrate the idea that there is no universal meaning?
  2. Is ignorance bliss?
  3. How long will it take for us to give up on free will?  will we ever do that?
  4. Will technology take over for athletic skill in all sports? if it does, will we enjoy it all the same?
  5. What’s the next big thing after the Internet?  will we recognize it when it happens?
  6. If there is a formal limit to knowledge, is there a point in knowing anything at all?  see question. 2
  7. why do people assume “intelligence” in the human sense is a better strategy?  the dinosaurs survived hundreds of millions of years without this “intelligence”.  or did they?
  8. If the universe expands to the point where observers on earth cannot observe any other object in the universe that isn’t on earth or near to it, will observers consider our scientific theories myth?  or will we beat that unobservable future with technology?
  9. Can you have thoughts without language (verbal or other symbolism)?
  10. What is time? no, really.  what is it?

Read Full Post »

The Jay Leno Show has been widely discussed.  Is it a fundamental shift in TV? does it change the economics?  Will it flop? Will others follow?

Pre-launch reactions weren’t really positive nor negative.  However, tonight’s airing didn’t really seem to knock people’s socks off.

The ratings will have to be the final verdict. BUT…. (it wouldn’t be a fun blog post if I didn’t speculate without sufficient data, right 🙂 )

My initial take: this will be a mediocre success in the short term and eventually make for a hard decision at NBC.  The huge amount of internal media thrown at it by NBC ensures that people know about the show.

The show’s content long term challenge will come from the Internet.  A topical comedy show that aims to be on top of the day’s events is really the specialty of Internet media.  The fact is TV content needs to be of a certain quality to succeed long term and trying to churn out decent comedy in this new form is going to be very difficult.

The business of the show will struggle long term as well.  They have to make big bucks on TV ads and I don’t think they can make the same cashflow with this show AND 2 late night shows. Here is also another issue… how will the other shows and the local affiliates react.  Let’s say this does work a little bit.  There’s a high likelihood that the Tonight Show and Jimmy Fallon will suffer from lack of a strong lead in and ad dollar competition.  The local affiliates might hate it to as for decades viewing behavior has been news then comedy.  If others are like me then as soon as these monologues finish you start to fall asleep…. uh oh!

Oh, yes, let’s discuss Kayne and his impact on Leno’s ratings. This is not going to be a long term boost to ratings.  When Hugh Grant happened, we didn’t have youtube and twitter.  Kayne’s moment has already peaked.  What I mean is that the consumer attention for this Kayne moment on Leno has already been exhausted by the Internet.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »