Month: January 2008

As several outlets are reporting, HBO plans to launch a trial project called HBO On Broadband, in which subscribers can watch the channel’s programs — such as the highly acclaimed series The Wire — on their computers for several weeks after they air. Of course, the programs can’t be downloaded or transferred to another device, and they eventually expire, but it’s still a step forward, if only a limited one.

As the Hollywood Reporter notes, however, an interesting twist to this particular offering is that HBO is a subsidiary of Time Warner, the media giant that has confirmed its cable subsidiary is rolling out metered Internet access. In other words, one part of the TW empire is giving you more content to watch — content that sucks up the gigabytes — and the other is planning to charge you by the gigabyte.

That may fly with the boys in finance, but if I were a Time Warner cable subscriber and an HBO fan, I would feel like I was getting squeezed between a rock and a hard place. Cynthia Brumfield of IPDemocracy doesn’t think it’s really that big a deal, but I think it’s a sign of the conflicting pressures that media conglomerates like TW find themselves under. Steve Bryant of Reel Pop has more on the HBO deal.

Has it been eight months already since mesh 2007? According to the calendar, it has – and yet, it seems like just yesterday we were meshing with Mike Arrington, Jim Buckmaster, Richard Edelman, Tom Williams, Austin Hill and an atrium full of eager participants at the MaRS centre (there are some great pics over here if you want to check them out).

We’ve been getting bombarded with emails about this year’s conference, with many of those coming from people wanting to block the dates out in their calendars. So without further ado, here they are: mesh 2008 is scheduled for May 21 and 22. Info on ticket prices, keynotes, panelists etc. will be coming soon. So book those dates!

In addition to mesh, we’re also planning a little something extra – something we think (and hope) will meet a growing need in Toronto: the need for practical, down-to-earth information about tools, knowledge and expertise for startups, web designers and developers of all kinds.

What we have in mind is a one-day event – which we’re tentatively calling meshU – that will be filled with small, focused workshops by those who have earned their stripes in the startup game; people who can talk knowledgeably about everything from interface design to using Amazon’s S3 distributed server network.

This one-day event – which is scheduled for May 20th, the day before mesh – will be taking shape over the next few months, and we’re hoping you can help program it by telling us what kind of content you want and/or need. Got an idea for a panel? Let us know. Have an expert you think would lead a great hands-on workshop? We’re all ears.

Post a comment here or send an email to [email protected] and let us know what you have in mind. More info coming soon on workshop leaders, ticket prices, etc.

Mesh on!

Like the swallows returning to Capistrano, or the prodigal son returning home to the family farm, my friend Scott Karp of Publishing 2.0 has decided to rejoin the Twitter-sphere. He stopped last fall sometime, and wrote a post about why he had decided it was a gigantic waste of time (one that made Anne Zelenka kind of mad). I wrote about Scott’s decision here, and said I understood, but that I personally get a lot out of Twitter.

In his post about why he has decided to rejoin the Twitterverse, Scott says that he has decided he needs to experiment with social media like Twitter — to eat his own dog food, as he puts it, since he is involved with a social media service called Publish 2 — and that he’s experimenting with a different approach this time in which he has reduced the number of people he follows on Twitter to 40, all of whom he “knows” in some sense.

My experience with Twitter — which I’ve written about here, among several other posts — is that it can be very different, depending on the person using it. There are some people I follow who never interact with me, and who I’m not even sure follow me back (meaning they get my Twitter messages). In some cases that’s fine, because they mostly broadcast thoughts or observations, and most of the time I’m OK with that.

Others I would like to correspond with, but they don’t follow me — which I find frustrating (and if you follow me and I don’t follow you back, I apologize for possibly creating the same feelings on your end). I can understand that for many of the people I follow, since they have hundreds and hundreds of people following them. How can they possibly interact with them all? And so what inevitably happens is tiers of relationships.

This reminds me of the “Dunbar number” — a theory that Robin Dunbar came up with, to describe what he thought was the maximum number of people that one could interact with on any kind of personal level. Dunbar figured the average was around 150. Some have claimed that they can boost that number online, and there’s no question that it’s easier to keep up a kind of intermittent attention flow with more people.

But does that produce any real value on either end? I wonder. Twitter seems to be riding that line, and it’s interesting to watch it develop.

No, not Walt Mossberg. He’s still a big fan 🙂 I mean Walt White, the former unassuming high-school chemistry teacher turned drug-dealing outlaw, who made this video for me. He didn’t make it out of concern for my welfare, mind you — he made it after my friend Leigh Himel typed in some info about me into a form at this website.

Walt’s Wisdom happens to be a “viral” promo for a show called Breaking Bad, in which Walt — played by actor Bryan Cranston from Malcolm in the Middle — finds out he only has months to live and decides to use his chemistry knowledge to set up a meth lab in his RV. Even though I know it’s just an ad for a show, it’s pretty funny.

http://www.waltswisdom.com/flash/waltsplayer_ext.swf?_id=2001kdnfqx

I’m a big fan of the Mashable blog by Pete Cashmore. They cover technology and the Web like no other blog, and they have some great writers — like Adam Ostrow, Mark “Rizzn” Hopkins, Kristen Nicole and others — but something has always kind of bothered me about the site, and I’m glad that Louis Gray finally wrote about it: Mashable often isn’t that great at giving credit to the blogs and writers who found an item first.

In his post, Louis is quite rightly upset about a couple of scoops he got, involving the site Readburner and another similar site called Shared Reader. In the first case, Mashable wrote about the site and gave him no credit whatsoever — not even a link. In the second case, Louis says that Mashable wrote an item and put a small “via” link at the bottom, something they often do. While this is a link, Louis is right that it’s not very prominent and is easily missed. But at least it’s a link.

The other example he uses is pretty outrageous, however: Louis says a quote he got from Robert Scoble was lifted from his post and used in a Mashable post without any link or attribution whatsoever. I think everyone would agree that taking quotes is pretty offside. Pete has responded in the comments to Louis’s post, and says he is reviewing the site’s linking policies, but he doesn’t say anything about the quote (although the post has been updated with attribution).

Attribution is something that has been — and is still — a long-running debate in traditional media as well. Television stations “rip and read” newspaper stories, but newspapers themselves routinely take articles from wire services like Reuters or Associated Press and use virtually the entire thing, but put their own writer’s byline on it. Sometimes they put a small “with files from” at the end of the story.

The fact that you can link on the Internet is one of the most powerful forces there is. A link from Mashable can help people find new blogs such as Louis’s, and they shouldn’t be stingy with their attribution — and they definitely shouldn’t be lifting quotes holus-bolus. I hope Pete and his team can set a good example for others.

Mike Arrington says that Yahoo has started integrating shared bookmarks from Delicious (which it now owns) into its search results, which is an interesting move — you can see an example here. Underneath each search result, it tells you how many people saved that page as a bookmark in their Delicious account. It doesn’t seem to be affecting the actual ranking of results, but it might do so in the future.

As a commenter pointed out, this is similar to what you see if you have the Stumbleupon toolbar installed. It seems like a smart move for Yahoo to make, not only because it takes advantage of one of the company’s Web 2.0 acquisitions (something Yahoo hasn’t done much of) but also because it adds something extra. And as this commenter at TechCrunch notes, the delicious “votes” on a link can add a fair amount of value, depending on the topic of your search.

Of course, as ParisLemon points out, it would be fairly trivial for Google to do the same thing with all the links that have been shared through Google Reader — something a couple of startups, including Readburner.com, have already begun aggregating. This seems like a natural step to me, and one way of adding the social element to search and competing with Mahalo and other “social search” services.

I don’t think my friend and fellow mesh conference organizer Stuart MacDonald will mind me saying this about him: He’s a travel geek. Not only has he been in the business a long time — from his days at Signature Vacations, to starting Expedia.ca, all the way to becoming director of marketing for Expedia.com before he pulled the ripcord — but he also likes to go out by the airport and watch the airplanes land. That’s hardcore.

I can’t think of a better guy to start a company like TripHarbor.com, which soft-launched this week. Stuart is passionate not just about the mechanics of travel — the bookings, the hotels, the ships, the planes and so on — but also about the enjoyment of travel, and helping people do it right. As he explained it to me, there are lots of travel sites that are designed to help people with regular trips, but for some reason the cruise market is still stuck in the dark ages. TripHarbor.com is designed to bring some Web 2.0 light to that market, and Stuart is just the man to do it.

For more details, there’s a post on the TripHarbor blog about how Stuart came to start the company. On a somewhat related note, Stuart is also making his debut tonight on the new CBC show Fortune Hunters, as one of the experts who dispense advice to young startups. Tonight’s episode takes a look at ChickAdvisor.com.

It’s been awhile since I wrote about Joost, but the sudden departure this week of the company’s chief technology officer — which started out amicably and then became a firing — made me want to take a look at the company again. Not that long ago, Joost was the flavour of the month: everyone wanted a beta invite, everyone was talking about how it could revolutionize video, and of course everyone wanted to talk about how Janus Friis and Niklas Zennstrom were going to completely disrupt the TV industry after disrupting both the online music business (with Kazaa) and the phone industry (with Skype).

And then what happened? A bunch of things. But mostly, at least as far as I’m concerned, the network failed to come up with enough compelling reasons to download and install the software, as I wrote here. There was some interesting programming, but not a huge amount. The app was cool enough to use and there were some interesting features — such as the ability to chat about a show while watching it — but nothing that was a must-have. Many of the users I spoke to said they eventually stopped using it and went back to watching TV on the web.

So what is really going on at Joost? I have no way of knowing, but when you have to fire your CTO, that doesn’t send a great message. Maybe it’s because of how Dirk-Willem van Gulik left, and how quickly he wound up going to work at BBC, I don’t know. But this commenter on the NewTeeVee post — who claims to be an insider at Joost — says that things are not going well: “The mood is very bad inside the company, money is running out fast, the cash burn is of course way way too high, and so there is a lot of nervousness. Honestly, I think they are dead.”

So is Joost headed for the deadpool? Mike Butcher at TechCrunch UK says he doesn’t think it will last the year. Apart from the news today that the network has added Star Trek to the service (which should have happened right after launch, let’s be honest), there hasn’t been much news out of Joost for months. That’s not usually a good sign.

Further reading:

NewTeeVee has some suggestions for what Joost can do to build some more traction, including getting more content from Hulu, building a Web version and putting Joost on the Wii. Andrew Baron of Rocketboom says that Joost was doomed from the start, for a variety of reasons. And ParisLemon — a longtime fan — has some thoughts about Joost as well.

Greg Sandoval over at CNET has a piece up about Radiohead and Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, and their experiments with “pay what you want” record releases. Greg is the guy who wrote the recent story in which Trent said he wasn’t that impressed by the response to his album (Reznor also mentioned the idea of an Internet tax to compensate artists for downloading, which I said was a dumb idea).

Sandoval’s headline says that artists shouldn’t miss the lessons that Radiohead and Reznor offer. And what are those lessons? Apparently, they are that musicians aren’t business people, and that “the music business is probably better left in the hands of businessmen.” The CNET writer goes on to point out that most musical acts fail — EMI says that only 5 per cent of its artists become profitable, apparently — and therefore artists still need the record labels to handle the business.

With all due respect to Greg, I think “the music business is better left in the hands of businessmen” is probably the worst advice I’ve heard in a long time. Do artists like Reznor or Radiohead need people with some financial acumen, or staffers who can handle the details of marketing, packaging, etc.? Of course they do. But it’s a long way from that to saying they should just remain shackled to the traditional record labels.

As for the line about only 5 per cent of EMI’s acts being profitable, that’s hardly surprising. For one thing, many of the label’s acts are unadulterated crap, which even millions spent on marketing and hype cannot spin into gold; and for another thing, the overhead of a traditional label like EMI is astronomical — for all the mid-level managers and their salaries and bonuses (never contingent on actual sales, of course). That’s presumably why the new owner is slashing and burning.

So pay attention to the lessons of Reznor and Radiohead, yes — it will be work to sell your own material, to market it and to profit from it. It’s not a licence to print money. But at least you can be in control of your own destiny to some extent.

Update:

Holy crap. Numerous sources — including the Bits blog at the NYT, as well as Mashable and Business Week — are reporting that Slide has raised $50-million, giving the company a valuation of $500-million. This seems almost unbelievable to me. Maybe I’m missing something, but I just don’t see how even a popular Facebook widget can be worth the kind of money we’re talking about here, unless Slide has a more extended strategy that I’m not seeing. For their sake, I hope so.

Original post:

Kara Swisher of All Things D says she’s hearing talk that Slide, the widget company founded by Max Levchin, is close to getting a bunch of funding that will value the company at “many times” its most recent $60-million to $80-million valuation. If that happens, it would be a pretty big boost for makers of Facebook apps. But is a company whose products consist of widgets such as SuperPoke and a slideshow really worth $100-million, or $200-million, or (God forbid) $300-million?

At the moment, Slide and another app-maker called RockYou are the Coke and Pepsi of the Facebook widget game, with several spots in the list of top widgets each. Over the past six months or so they have jockeyed for top spot, with RockYou claiming those honours just before Christmas. Slide has SuperPoke, RockYou has X Me; Slide has FunWall, RockYou has SuperWall; Slide has Top Friends and RockYou has Zombies. Each one has millions of “users.” But what are they worth?

In a recent post, I looked at the numbers put out by Adonomics — a Facebook app consulting company — which argues that apps like FunWall are worth $30-million based on an ad model that the company has come up with. As I noted in that post, however, much of what goes into those numbers is just guesswork, and maybe a little wishful thinking as well. Can something like FunWall produce enough actual value that we can say (in any real sense) it is “worth” $30-million?