The Good NET Guide

Posts Tagged ‘culture’

We’re here at the SXSW festival in Austin, Texas where Twitter co-founder Evan Williams doing a keynote Q&A with Umair Haque. Williams may use the time to talk a bit about Twitter’s upcoming ad platform. Update: It’s actually an “At Platform” called At Anywhere — more here.

Interestingly enough, Twitter saw its first burst of popularity three years ago at this very conference.

Below find my live notes (paraphrased):

UH: Ev you have something pretty interesting you want to say today?

EW: Yeah, we want to announce something. We wanted to announce our new “At Platform” (undoubtedly to be spelled an @ Platform) – a way to integrate Twitter into any website. “At Anywhere” – basically this allows you to place the Twitter hovercards on any site. We have 13 sites we’re launching with including Amazon, ebay, Yahoo, Digg, Bing, Meebo, Salesforce.

UH: So what can you do with this?

EW: You can easily tweet from any page that is using this. Also, maybe you want talk to authors of posts without going to Twitter itself, you can just hover over their name and tweet them. Twitter is a very easy way to keep in touch.

UH: So this helps you contextualize information. But why would sites use this?

EW: A connection to users you didn’t have before – and it keeps people coming back. And it will result in more followers for a site. Also, hopefully more people who are your fans using twitter to talk about you or your content. And you can bring in users’ tweets talking about your site.

UH: So it’s a platform to juice up site’s networks and virility. But it’s an “At Platform” not an “Ad Platform”.

EW: Yeah, it’s about lowering the barrier for information.

UH: What makes 21st century businesses different? Like Twitter? The first principle to me is experimentation. Why are you willing to explore different possibilities?

EW: Experimentation lets you create value. “Whatever you assume when you start out, you’re wrong.” Most of the great businesses of our time have experimented. Like Google.

UH: So it’s about creating value, then figuring it out?

EW: Yes, it’s about creating experience for users and businesses. There is a ton of business use on Twitter today — it’s one of the biggest uses. We want to make that better, easier, faster.

UH: What is Twitter evolving to?

EW: What is Twitter has always been a tough question to answer. We think of it as an information network — different from a social network. It’s about getting info and also sharing. You can take advantage of Twitter without sharing anything about your life. We need to increase the signal-to-noise ratio.

UH: So better information, better connections, better choices.

EW: Yes.

UH: Experimentation is about iteration. So how does that happen at Twitter?

EW: We have a bunch of awesome people in the company now. We’ve grown very quickly over the past year. Our employee growth curve is almost like our user growth curve now. We have people on focused teams, like mobile, or internationalization. We’re worried about central thinking and slow processes. So we tell our teams to “go for it.”

UH: So what’s your role?

EW: I don’t get into the nuts and bolts of code, cause things would be a big mess. I spend most of my time thinking about the high level issues. And I think a lot about the company – how do we scale the company, about our culture, etc. How do we define the characteristics we want. I think there is a parallel between the service and the company — openness is huge, transparency.

UH: So openness is very important. Help us trace the arc of openness at Twitter.

EW: Yeah, it means a lot of things. We debated if openness or transparency. “A window is transparent, but a door is open.” The users have taken Twitter and morphed it into what they want it to be. Now developers are doing the same thing. Openness is really a survival technique.

I sit down with new employees when they start and go over 9 assumptions you should have about working at Twitter. One key one is assume there are more smart people outside the company than insides.

UH: What about giving the golden goose away? Why be so open?

EW: That was a big question for us – the deals with Bing and Google. These were the first guys we shared our full stream with. There’s a lot of debate about that. Because we don’t have a business model yet, so why give it away? But we went back to the principle of giving users the most value.

There are 50 million tweets a day, how do we show you the best ones for you? Right now, we don’t do a good enough job of that. But with these partnerships, we have more chances to do that.

UH: Was there a lot of internal debate about this?

EW: Yeah, there was a ton. But we decided it was good. And now we’ve expanded the deals – like with Yahoo. And a few weeks ago we talked about giving this data to thousands of others.

Now third party developers are building a lot of value. Like adding pictures to Twitter.

CoTweet and HootSuite are really interesting too. Twitter.com isn’t a good interface for doing customer support, but those guys are. CoTweet just got acquired by a company that wants to focus on that more.

We’d love to see much more focus on creating these deep experiences that create value.

UH: So experimentation and openness. Other companies want control, like Apple. How open are you guys?

EW: We’re pretty open – there is some control we need to employ because if we were infinitely open we’d be doing a disservice to users. Openness can work against you still. It has to be managed a lot. Having an open API makes it easier to make apps that will spam users. We send cease and desists everyday to companies making spam tools. We have to exert some control.

UH: I think shepherding is a good way to put it. So you had some interesting use recently – such as the earthquake in Chile.

EW: I got an email recently about the earthquake, thanking us for helping with the situation. This is very gratifying for us because we’ve always held it important for Twitter to reach the weakest signals in the world. We started out with a big focus on SMS – and it’s still really important to us. Because it reaches so many people. We have deals with 65 carriers around the world to send these SMS tweets.

We’re at the beginning. We’re seeing really strong growth in India where SMS is huge. And in the Middle East.

UH: I think this changing the world stuff is the future for entrepreneurs. It gets to the heart of the point about inclusiveness. So – what is an “active user”?

EW: To me it comes back to – is someone getting value out of Twitter? If they don’t have an account it’s hard to know, like people who search Google for tweets. In the beginning we put a lot of focus on telling the world or your friends and family what you’re doing. But now there is something interesting on Twitter for everyone – like the Flaming Lips being on Twitter, you can get updates on the band.

And as more people start getting information on Twitter, they’re more likely to get involved.

UH: Someone has started using Twitter inside the White House, right?

EW: Yeah, it’s really interesting that it’s from in the White House. It’s an official channel, but they’re using it a different type of way. It’s about reducing the walls between people with a lot of influence, and those who they influence. And that’s the most profound promise of the Internet. This is the wave I started on 10 years ago with blogging. It’s about the democracy of information. Anyone can put information on the web — that’s huge.

UH: Tweet Minister in the UK aggregates the tweets from members of parliament. This is re-wiring society in some ways. But we also have a counter-force – like state control of information.

EW: In some regions, yes, this is bad and hurting the web. But the Internet is a tidal wave that you will not be able to keep out. Like in China, who knows how long those firewalls will hold up – but not forever.

UH: Yes, there are many ways to get through the firewalls already. There’s a lot of pressure on them.

Let’s talk about “betterness.” I booked a trip to his five star resort in an exotic land. When I got there, it was a shack. The manager couldn’t do anything — so I put it on Twitter. Within 15 minutes the booking company called me, and in 20 minutes I got a new hotel. In a half an hour my vacation was fixed.

EW: That’s great. Our hope is that this is the norm, not a fluke. We have a bit of a dichotomy, because there is more everyday you want to search for. We don’t just want to maximize that, we hope to make Twitter more useful to you. We want to decrease time you spend on Twitter, not increase it.

Recently we went through a process to define our operating principles. The number one principle is “be a force for good.” Another principle is “pay attention.”

UH: David Pogue did a campaign against hidden charges from the carriers. It’s the same thing with the hotel operator and me. I know you’re a big fan of Warren Buffet – he also believes in creating real value.

EW: Yes, from a business perspective, Twitter needs to fundamentally be about helping people make better decisions. Or the help something happen that normally wouldn’t. Like the donations to Haiti through text message — we weren’t taking the money, but it spread virally through Twitter. People want to help each other out, we need to reduce the friction.

UH: Is that what you want to do with the new At Platform?

EW: Yes, totally. We’ll see what happens, the obvious stuff is more tweeting, but I think it’s a lowering of the friction as well.

UH: You ask yourself, how would i make Walmart better? Why ask yourself that?

EW: Because as we look at how businesses are using Twitter – we want our tool to help businesses get better.

The world is so often a black box where there is no communication. There’s a lack of dialogue and a lack of transparency. The promise of all these technologies is that this goes away. You close the loop.

UH: Outline for us your big picture goals.

EW: Fostering the open exchange of information. To be a force for good. The ease of exchange of information is important. Help out other people with something as small as a retweet. That’s our ambition.

UH: Google is all about archiving the world’s information. Yours is different — creating new information.

It’s all about advantage though – what’s your advantage.

EW: Our advantage will only come if everyone wins. We only do win-win deals. Because any deal where someone is losing is unsustainable. That’s why we haven’t turned on the revenue yet — there’s a lot of low-hanging fruit, but none of it is sustainable.

Creating an advantage for other people and not giving them a reason to work around you – that’s key.

UH: Is the Internet making a better media industry?

EW: I think there’s a huge shift going on – but it’s an ecosystem where everything is involved. This user-generated content just makes things richer. Blogging and traditional media work together. Twitter compliments traditional media. I was talking last night to some guys from CNN – it’s helped them change what they do. It’s a win-win.

UH: How will the At Platform speak to that?

EW: Hopefully these guys will us it to get the new out there.

UH: What makes you tick?

EW: There are two types of entrepreneurs. What drives me is creating things that didn’t exist before. Your product or service should be at the end of the sentence: “wouldn’t it be awesome if…”

It’s creating new stuff versus extracting from old stuff. There are people who look at money as the goal versus the teams. I create businesses to make new things. It’s a fuel for creating more things in the world. I’ve been lucky to stumble upon things that have helped change the world.

UH: Why focus on these things though?

EW: Largely luck. But maybe it’s what interests me. Twitter was a side project of Odeo – my cofounders came up with it. Blogging was a side project too at one point.

UH: If something is awesome, people will use it.

EW: Yes.

Also, helping others succeed is a sub principle of ours.

UH: Tell us one or two more of them.

EW: Be a force for good, pay attention — make things happen is another one. There’s also building a culture of trust.

UH: What are your big lessons to other entrepreneurs?

EW: Create something you want to exist in the world. Another is focus. Many people are trying to do a lot of things when they should be doing one thing. You may be wrong with whatever you’re trying out, but you’ll try other things.

A lot of the great companies are now coming from outside Silicon Valley. You don’t have to be there.

That’s a wrap.

New data released from analytics service Hitwise today names Facebook the largest website in the U.S. with 7.07% of all U.S. visits. Google is second at 7.03%. Yahoo Mail is third with 3.8% and Yahoo is fourth at 3.67% (if you combined both Yahoo properties, and I’m not sure why they don’t, Yahoo would be first). YouTube (a Google property) is fifst with 2.14%.

This is the first time Hitwise has named Facebook the top site in the U.S. Comscore still ranks Google the top site by reach at 81% of the U.S. population. Facebook, at 53%, is still behind Google, Yahoo and Microsoft sites in the U.S., according to the most recent Comscore data from February 2010.

You may recall that last year we poked fun at Pepsi for sending us a few cases of Aquafina water bottles. First of all, we’re a tech blog. Secondly, the point of the outreach was to showcase Aquafina’s new plastic bottles that apparently use much less plastic than the old ones. Of course, they sent God knows how many carbons into their air shipping us not one, but two crates of these things for no real reason. This year, the company has a better idea. Or rather, they think you do.

Pepsi is calling for you to submit ideas to their Refresh Project before the SXSW conference taking place in Austin, TX next month. During the conference, people both there and across the web would then vote on their favorite ideas (through their site, Twitter, Facebook, etc). The winner, announced on the last day of SXSW’s interactive portion (March 16), would get a spot grant to make their idea a reality. The Refresh Project for this month is currently giving away $1.3 million in funding, for example.

The Refresh Project traditionally breaks up ideas into the following categories: Health, Arts & Culture, Food & Shelter, The Planet, Neighborhoods, and Education. But for this SXSW event, Pepsi is looking for “digital pro-social” ideas. Not really sure what that means, but I assume it means they’re looking for something involving the Internet that can make the world a better place. At the very least, they’re looking for a better idea than shipping plastic water bottles to blogs.

Kidding aside, Pepsi is investing more than $20 million this year for fund ideas through this Refresh Project. Start thinking about some good ones to submit for SXSW next month.

There’s an interesting and thought provoking essay at BetaNews by Joe Wilcox entitled “ Why former employees say Microsoft can’t innovate “. It’s a rather myopic examination of the middle-management woes and culture of job protectionism that is harming Microsoft’s ability to truly create.

Read the original:
Microsoft: Too big for its own good?

Foursquare continues to sign interesting deals with major players in a wide range of fields. Following the service’s Bravo deal a couple weeks ago, they’ve reached a deal with restaurant rating guide Zagat, according to The New York Times. And AdAge has some details about deals with even more partners, including HBO, Warner Brothers, and the History Channel.

The service has been on a roll lately. They’re now seeing over a million check-ins a week, with that rate doubling in the last month alone. And these new deals can only help them as they bring the type of mainstream appeal that it took services like Twitter so long to find.

While Zagat is an obvious partner thanks to its restaurante recommendations, the entertainment partnership appeal may not be immediately apparent. But as you can see on the Foursquare page for the movie Valentine’s Day, those promoting the movie have added 50 “Romantic Tips” around the cities that the movie takes place in, New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Boston. Any Foursquare user that checks-in at one of these places will unlock a special badge for the movie.

The new HBO show, How To Make It In America, meanwhile, has four special badges that you can unlock: Culture, Living, Cocktails, and Nightlife. Each of these is obtained by visiting venues from the show.

And the Zagat deal is interesting in that it goes beyond simply offering food and restaurant recommendations. The service plans to have a weekly web video series entitled “Meet The Mayor” in which they interview the Foursquare “mayor” of a restaurant in their guide.

Another deal that Foursquare recently signed was with Harvard.

These types of deals are crucial to Foursquare not only because they point to an eventual money-making opportunity, but also because they give the service a way to fend off attacks from Yelp (which just launched a check-in feature on its own iPhone app), and soon Facebook. Meanwhile, these deals give brands a fun way to interact with the public. It’s advertising, but it’s interactive.

Now Foursquare just has to solve that douchebag problem…

I’m safely ensconced in a ski hut in Austria but I’ll be traveling back to the US of A shortly and I look forward to not being able to use electronic items in the last hour of my nine hour flight. After all, that is the magic hour, the hour during which most intercontinental planes are circling over US soil and would, therefore, apparently make the biggest impression on a scared and frightened American populace. After all, if Mr.

The rest is here: 
On Mr. Sizzly Pants, terrorism, and airline safety

ALL NEW! Star Wars Gangsta Rap: Chronicles Atom.com: Funny Videos | Atom Originals | Star Wars Gangsta Rap We present to you the Star Wars Rap , a rap about the film Star Wars . This is the apex of our culture and will be remember as the high water mark for Western thought, a sort of Jungian tipping point

More:
Star Wars rap: OK, roll up the Internet, we’re done here

No one disputes that Silicon Valley is the global capital of the tech world. But this wasn’t always so. It is the Valley’s dynamism and networks which have given it an unassailable advantage. Silicon Valley has simply left rivals like Boston’s Route 128 in the dust.

I mentioned a little bit about my first Columbus Day in California in a previous column. But I didn’t tell you the whole story. I was invited to three amazing events on the night of October 12. Venture capital firm Alsop-Louie—known as one of the wackier and unconventional VC firms—invited me to their legendary Columbus Day party. On that same evening I had an invite from Henry Chesbrough, Executive Director of the Center for Open Innovation at the University of California-Berkeley to attend a dinner party for his forum. Down in Silicon Valley I also had an invite to speak at an event with India’s former Minister of Disinvestment, Arun Shorie—the guy who was once in charge of privatizing the country’s moribund nationalized firms and who is as close as you can get to financial royalty in India.

It was a really hard decision which one to pick. And I found myself wondering, where else in the world would I have to face such a decision? The answer is nowhere. Silicon Valley, which has expanded to embrace the entire Bay Area as an engine of entrepreneurship and innovation, is a unique place of powerful and concurrent overlapping networks. As a new arrival to Silicon Valley and San Francisco, I had read about this and did believe it. But it was hard to understand to what degree these types of concentric circles of connections were pervasive in the Valley. I am now studying how some of these networks develop and their influence on success rates in entrepreneurship.

I am focusing on what is possibly the largest of these networks, an organization called The Indus Entrepreneurs (TiE). This started as an Indian network and served as a mechanism for those from the Subcontinent to help each other. Silicon Valley is the birthplace of TiE and remains its stronghold. But at the latest TiE Global Conference, held in Silicon Valley a few weeks ago, an interesting debate broke out among the Board of Directors. While the organization remained largely Indian in composition, a significant number of non-Indians had joined TiE and become very active members (some had risen to the role of chapter president). Some members of the board thought it was time to change the name of TiE from The Indus Entrepreneurs to The International Entrepreneurs. They eventually agreed to drop the “Indus” from the name and to just call the organization TiE. The fact that such a debate even took place illustrates both the power of networks to embrace outsiders and draw them in, as well as the power of these networks, when unconstrained by convention or conservative establishment rules, to grow in unexpected ways. It’s a metaphor for Silicon Valley.

Which brings me to Boston. Ever heard of Route 128? To my surprise, neither have any of my students at Duke or the entrepreneurs I’ve met in Silicon Valley. I’m surprised because it wasn’t so long ago that Silicon Valley was considered a poor cousin of Boston’s tech center—a cluster of technology companies located along this freeway which partially rings the city. Starting in the 1960s and on through the 1980s, Route 128 was, if anything, more closely associated with tech than Silicon Valley. Today few young technology workers even know where Route 128 is located, let alone its importance in the tech world. Silicon Valley has simply left Boston’s tech center behind.

In the 1980’s the Silicon Valley and Route 128 looked very similar—a mix of large and small tech firms, world class universities, venture capital, and military funding. If you were betting on one you’d have been wise to bet on Route 128 because of its longer industrial history and proximity to a large number of high quality educational institutions (Harvard, Yale, Brown, MIT, Tufts, Amherst) and proximity to Bell Labs and other large corporate research centers. You remember Bell Labs, right? It’s where the transistor was invented. Now, aside from big biotech breakthroughs, Boston is a distant second nationally to Silicon Valley in technology entrepreneurship. So, what happened to Boston?

A young professor at UC-Berkeley, AnnaLee Saxenian, wrote a book in 1994 which answers this question. At a time when Boston still thought it was the powerhouse of the tech industry, Saxenian declared Boston the loser in the tech race and explained why it would only fall further behind. This book was titled Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. It kicked off a firestorm of criticism from the Boston elite. Saxenian also alienated friends at her alma mater, MIT.

She noted that Silicon Valley had an amazing dynamism about it. There were extensive professional networks, job hopping was the norm, information was exchanged openly, and the culture encouraged risk taking. The Silicon Valley ecosystem supported entrepreneurial experimentation and collective learning. In other words, Silicon Valley was a very open network—a giant social networking site working in analog before the concept of such a thing even existed.

This organizational mechanism was in sharp contrast to that of Route 128. Dominated by large, vertically integrated, and secretive minicomputer producers such as DEC, Wang, Prime, and Data General. Technology, skill, and know-how were trapped within the boundaries of the large corporations.

The differences were evident at many levels: venture capitalists in Silicon Valley had deep roots in local networks and were far more nimble than their east coast counterparts; educational institutions and research labs in the West partnered with local startups as well as more established firms, while those in the East worked only with the largest corporations; and the meritocratic openness of Silicon Valley made it a magnet for non-traditional talent and immigrants.

By the mid-1990s the east had missed the shift from minicomputers to personal computers as the flexible Silicon Valley ecosystem sped ahead with innovation across a diversifying range of components and systems going from chips, routers, and application software to ecommerce and search engines. Today Silicon Valley is the leading location for cleantech venture activity, an area widely considered to be the next big value creation engine for the U.S. and the world.

Boston, however, is no slouch. The Route 128 community remains the second biggest in the U.S. in terms of venture funds committed. Boston has powerful research institutions, still, and lots of very strong companies. In some areas, such as biotech, Boston may even rival Silicon Valley. But overall, its pretty clear that the Valley has not only won but is racing further ahead.

Most entrepreneurs and engineers that come to Silicon Valley, come to experience this network and to embrace the culture it has created. That’s why I came, too. Network effects don’t just work for fax machines. But then again, most of them knew that intrinsically. University guys like me need to do a bunch of surveys to figure it out. They voted with their hearts and feet.

Editor’s note: Guest writer Vivek Wadhwa is an entrepreneur turned academic. He is a Visiting Scholar at UC-Berkeley, Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School and Director of Research at the Center for Entrepreneurship and Research Commercialization at Duke University. Follow him on Twitter at @vwadhwa.

Crunch Network: CrunchBase the free database of technology companies, people, and investors

Earlier this week, there was a bit of a ruckus over a mandate that was released over the weekend by the Chinese General Administration of Press and Publication and the National Copyright Administration, which suggested that foreign investors would be barred from taking stakes in China’s online game market players in virtually any form.

The circular, jointly released by the GAPP and the copyrights association said overseas bodies would be banned from investment in China’s online game operations through setting up wholly owned enterprises, joint ventures and cooperatives.

Heck, it even said foreign businesses would be prohibited from joining and controlling Chinese enterprises’ online game operations by indirect means like contracting relevant agreements or offering technological support. The new restrictions would be pure protectionism, as it would require governmental approval for all new games launched within China.

Turns out that there’s more to this story though.

Inside Social Games, which also reported on the supposed ban, updated its story shortly after publication based on a statement from a source in Beijing. Their source basically informed them that this wasn’t a new policy at all, and that the public feud was apparently part of a major bureaucratic battle between GAPP and the Chinese Ministry of Culture. “It is total BS”, he or she concluded.

Indeed, contradictory words are coming from said Ministry of Culture (MOC), from the mouth of Mr. Tuo Zuhai, the deputy director of the Department of Cultural Market who spoke at the Game Developers Conference in Shanghai earlier this week. According to Web2Asia, which exclusively posted a document with the transcribed speech of the government official (also embedded below).

A choice quote:

“I am deeply touched by the statements of the general managers of several companies. General Administration of Press and Publication must stop the surly interference in domestic online game enterprises. It is MOC’s duty to ensure the long-term development of China’s culture industry, especially the game industry. Now is the season when the new replace the old and the still cold weather is about to become warm. I believe we will certainly usher the sunny days when the dark clouds will definitely gone with the wind.”

And:

“Ministry of Culture is further stressed to be the competent authority in charge of the administration of online games. Recently General Administration of Press and Publication issued another notice and this will surely accelerate the full control by MOC. This is an major and important issue of right and wrong, and is a matter of principle, as mentioned the day before yesterday by the officials of the Office of Central Institutional Organization Commission. We will never compromise on such a matter of principle.”

To make a long story short, this is a political power struggle, and last weekend’s statement by the GAPP that caused many media outlets to report the ban as fact is simply a small part of that and by no means anything definitive.

The second document we embedded hereunder is a translation of a notification from the Chinese Ministry of Culture dated September this year, just before GAPP issued its counter-announcement. The document clarifies once again that it is the sole administration body for the operation of online games in China. The document also refers to the delays in re-launching World of Warcraft in China, after Blizzard had decided to discontinue working with The9 as their exclusive operator and awarded the contract to its competitor NetEase.

Why does all this matter?

All of the large Chinese game companies are listed on international stock exchanges and/or invested in by foreign VCs, as are many promising startups in the field. And we’re talking about a huge, enormously lucrative industry here: China’s online gaming revenues grew 39.5% to $906 million year-on-year in the second quarter of 2009 and is expected to near $1 billion soon, with online operator Tencent Holdings leading the charge ahead of competitors Shanda and World of Warcraft operator NetEase. A recent Reuters report cited data from Analysys International, which said Tencent captured 20 percent of the overall Chinese online gaming market during the quarter. Earlier this year, Pearl Research predicted the Chinese online gaming market would reach a stunning $5.5 billion by 2012, and this seems well within reach.

An August report from Niko Partners forecast that there will be 65 million online gamers in China by year-end.

It would be a serious measure if the Chinese government were to ban any type of foreign involvement in this business, but fortunately it doesn’t appear that the strict regulations the copyright associations and the GAPP would like to see enforced are not going to become a reality any type soon, if ever.

Leaders of Ministry of Culture Proclaim that A Matter of Principle Shall Never Be Compromised –

Office of Central Institutional Organization Commission clarifies management responsibility of online games –

Crunch Network: CrunchBoard because it’s time for you to find a new Job2.0

Nokia’s shares are down 6.02 percent today on news that Nokia suffered an $834 million loss due to falling handset sales. In this environment it’s easy to wave this away as a crisis blip but there may be something more afoot.

Nokia blamed the loss on component shortages, a valid concern. Apple has been buying up all the flash it can eat and companies like LG and Samsung are blowing out feature phones to directly compete with Nokia’s lower-end models faster than anyone thought possible.