KernelPop

Beacon

2010-01-25T20:04:00.000-08:00

For some random reason, I remembered I used to post stuff to this blog. I couldn't even remember what it was called...

Google helped me find it, and firefox remembered my password. So here I am again.

Its a fascinating archive of my frame of mind in early 2006... it seems like such a long time ago and really highlights a huge gap since. I guess I've been buried by work. But I know I've had tons of ideas. It would be nice to retrace them right now, but I guess I got lazy and they evaporated as fast as they came.

Maybe I'll start to put it back out there again.

NBA Widget

2007-05-17T07:53:00.001-07:00

Fractal Value Pattern

2006-11-03T20:10:00.000-08:00

Blizzl0r
Originally uploaded by Math Jazz.

Simple exponential would have been convenient, but its not quite so one-directional, is it?

Picking Winners

2006-10-22T19:44:00.000-07:00

There is a debate in the policy world that has been going on for a long time: Whether or not a central entity should decide focus and investment, or if the frontiers should find their own way. There is no concensus on this issue...

We also practice both without really noticing, and work hard to play sides against the other in the name of something else. At the end of the day (and from either side) it seems to be the winners who wind up picking the Winners.

Yada

2006-10-22T18:56:00.000-07:00

Get Version 1 Out

2006-10-17T20:04:00.000-07:00

I stumbled across Paul Graham's startup essay again today and found this part resonated a little too much:

... get a version 1 out as soon as you can ... The only way to make something customers want is to get a prototype in front of them and refine it based on their reactions.
The other approach is what I call the "Hail Mary" strategy. You make elaborate plans for a product, hire a team of engineers to develop it (people who do this tend to use the term "engineer" for hackers), and then find after a year that you've spent two million dollars to develop something no one wants. This was not uncommon during the Bubble, especially in companies run by business types, who thought of software development as something terrifying that therefore had to be carefully
planned.

My world has become some odd hybrid of these two approaches. I'll say this: They don't go that well together. Gotta pick one. Or at least, crown one king.

Macrostructures

2006-10-16T21:39:00.000-07:00

Macrostructures, Inc

Some Fruit

2006-10-16T20:47:00.000-07:00

I've been quiet for a while, but I've been starting to see some fruit from the 2.0 fad -- and it has very little to do with Youtube.

The whole thing went overboard. More hype than it deserved, and the hype seem to spoil the promise.

But I stumbled across finetune today. I started to realize the power of consumer distribution and how consumer interaction is shaping business models. Sign up and take it for a spin. This is the first service that I think might kill online radio as we know it...

Regardless, this puppy is about interactive programming. Its beyond Launchcasts invisible hand. Its at your fingertips, and directly under your control. Playlists are active and moldable, but not required. You can listen to other people's stuff, or stuff it picks based on a single artist.

The thing that caught my attention is that it forces you to extend your network of artists or songs. Only 3 songs per artist on any playlist, and you can't play a playlist until you have about 60 songs. But there is a Lazy button. Push it and you get a rotation. finetune picks the rest for you.

THESE ARE AD PLACEMENTS. People are lazy. They will accept the engine's choices because it takes too damn long to pick 60 songs (I did at least). That's available inventory. Its almost like product placements, but you get the product itself. Skip the ad, don't need a tag line. Qualified people get your content and get exposed to your business. And the consumer gets relevent 'marketing.'

The idea extends well beyond music. That's just one form of content. Its another form of the ad game. But its a different content game that favors serial publication. You have to be refreshing your offering frequently to build the business.

Learning to Fly

2006-07-02T10:10:00.000-07:00

Its a big wide open world out there. You have to master the ground, manage the surf and learn how to fly.

Churn, Attention, and Shackles

2006-05-28T06:34:00.000-07:00

Very interesting chatter on bubblegen around valuations and churn. The churn discussion gets interesting in the comments, where people explore the nature of networks and highlight how the qualities of social networks may be distinguished from other networks.

Basically, social networks may be expected to behave in many respects like a night club. Change and migration is inevitable because people change. Economically-founded social networks, like eBay, have more a solid basis as a maket of sorts. People establish reputations based on transaction history: switching costs are too high to establish new networks (re-establishing these reputations).

The web2.0 rantings crop up around who should really own the value of these established reputations. In web1.0, companies like eBay use this value to trap people into (aka add value to) its network. In web2.0, the people own their own value.... or at least that's the rallying cry.

I don't believe that this actually the case. If these social networks could find a way to raise switching costs they would. And I think they already try. You can share photos, but can you make a bulk transfer? doubt it. Try moving an entire blog from one system to another... or even your links.

Freedom to publish, and republish, and chunk and mash and all that hype is great. Its also truely unique and innovation inspiring. But it has its limits. Each of these networks needs its nodes. It is nothing without them. The economics drive each service to limit its scope to reinforce the values of service retention among its users.

... but this does raise an interesting potential opportunity. If this is truely the mentality among the building mass of peer-consumers, then the central service of value will be reputation portability. Its a natural extension of preference portability ("my" portal pages), opinion distribution (blogs), link portability (delicious) and photo poprtability (flickr)... There probably is a market for qualified reputation tagging and service migration facilitation.

Tipping YouTube

2006-05-04T07:40:00.000-07:00

So why did Youtube take off when other more established video hosting services stagnate? Amr Awadallah posed this question earlier this week, and I've been trying to figure it out.

I started with a web2.0 hypothesis and a vast pool of comScore Media Metrix data, and found some compelling evidence almost right away. Social networks thrust youtube past its competitors, and acted as a springboard for broader public adoption.

The idea is that social networks built by peer publishers would accelerate distribution and stimulate broader adoption as it reaches the edges. To test this theory, I evaluated the penetration and composition of peer publisher targets among the video hosting services that Amr evaluated over the past 18 months. I used myspace, blogger, and other peer publishing sites to build these segments, and also reviewed across age and gender groups to see if there was central point from which growth fanned out.

Let me review a concrete case that demostrates the findings -- looking at Youtube and Stupidvideos (who had comparable traffic in October 2005), using Myspace users as a proxy for social networkers.

In the early months of Youtube (oct & nov), 70-80% of its visitors also visited Myspace. Stupidvideos composition was around 30%, where it had been all year. Youtube growth is built on this segment. When it breaks from the pack starting in December, its core usage base is still myspace users (@80% comp).

But ultimately, youtube tips. Growth starts to extend beyond this core network, into the more mainstream usage base (as evidenced by the declining myspace comp). Stupidvideos, meanwhile, stagnates aside from a modest tailwind as people adopt these services. But it has clearly lost, despite being first.

Youtube clearly penetrated the social networking crowd early (and not by accident), and derived a large chunk of its visitors from people who at least touch these networks.

So what? Everyone has to get their traffic somewhere, right? True, but I believe we're seeing the first demonstration of the power of social networks. The core of these networks are peer publishers -- people who routinely communicate in a one-to-many fashion about, well, whatever they feel like.

The key here is the one-to-many form of communication. Peer publishers are broadcasting -- to a limitted network, but broadcasting nonetheless. They are not telling a freind who tells a friend. They are broadcasting to a larger group (who happen to be inclined to do the same).

The power of these social networks is plain as day, but I still can't figure out how it can be monetized. Should myspace be asking for a cut of Youtube's success? Could they even manage such an arrangement?

It seems the power balance is so firmly in the hands of the users, that any blanket marketing or distribution model would be doomed. Either way, it will be interesting to watch this unfold.

Numbskull

2006-04-28T18:46:00.000-07:00

I may be nothing but a numbskull who pounds a few little ragged ideas out every once and a while. I'm well out on the long tail, and for most puposes I am simply talking to myself. Thankfully, this is not something that I have a problem with.

Umair Haque has nailed it again. A straightforward breakdown of cliche, reality and preference as a demonstration of the constructive and destructive economies of peer content production. The freedom to agglomerate (I love economists), and the peril of dial-up talk radio morons spouting bullshit on all of my niche interests.

In the end, he points out that the whole situation is self-correcting. The people who deliver the most value within any network benefit, and those who don't don't. There is very little incentive for someone who does not care about makeup to keep spouting off on make up sites.

But this leaves me in an odd spot. Maybe I should just take the hint... My posts add no value to any network (thought feedburner tells me I have 6 subscribers). Or maybe I just redefine the network. I love my own bullshit, and have always been content with a lively internal debate. If its not enough to please a network of 1, then it'll never fly far beyond that.

... still think there is a market in facilitating cohesion and network extension. The noise is exteme and growing. There are many thoughtful and meaningful voices out on the tail (in addition to the numbskulls). They may find their niche, or their network of 1, but its getting harder -- not easier -- to find them.

Enterprise Peer Solutions

2006-04-14T05:33:00.000-07:00

It seems that the peer pundits are finally starting to talk about the potential for peer solutions in the corporate environment. Fred Wilson has a post on the Union Square blog that discusses the potential (and the discussion).

I've been thinking about this for a while, both as a web2.0 spectator and as a manager. I've posted a few thoughts on what I've been able to find in the space, and the initial kernel on the obvious opportunity in this space, inspired by a MSFT anouncement to integrate RSS with Outlook.

This is the real thing. Someone will make a big business out of this. Building effective many-to-many communication platforms is central to any organization, and today we have a better way.

It will be very interesting to watch how this plays out (or to throw on a jersey and get into the fray).

Keep sharp

2006-04-01T12:55:00.000-08:00

I've been pretty quiet on the posts lately... way too many nights and weekends going towards the day job. That's time I would spend followign my nose through postings.

I've been skimming, and it seems like the honeymoon with peer-based publishing is winding down. I'm not saying its not dead -- just some of the raw sex appeal seems to be wearing off.

I hope to have something more thoguhtful to say shortly... which is also that I hope to give myself enough time to keep sharp. Burnout is no good.

NBC Video Posts

2006-03-11T11:29:00.000-08:00

There is a fairly heated argument going on on A VC. Fred is supportive of NBC's move in an early post yesterday. They are showing signs of 'getting it'. Own the content, but leverage emerging social media to realize additional benefits... chunk it, free it.

But in a subsequent post on the topic, Fred stirs the pot a little bit with an atta-boy to a guy who hacked the NBC source so the video would play on his site instead of NBCs. That set off some sparks -- at least with one person.

Its a good point/coutner on the topic. You should check it out if you didn't see it. And check back in if you did...

My opinion: This is an open-minded move on NBCs part. They still have to dig a little deeper to make this strategic and tactical. I tend to agree with Fred that it would actually be encouraging to see an ad associated with the clips. It would signal that its more than defensive branding.

Uncertainty

2006-02-27T15:33:00.000-08:00

.. a follow up to that leadership stuff in my last post.

A key component of leadership is handling uncertainty. You can never know what will happen and there is risk associated with just about everything.

There is a certain amount of blind faith involved, and a certain amount of brut force required to pound through doubt.

The preacher analogy comes back again -- Unwavering faith; conviction. The best leaders will achieve these traits not just in themselves but also the people around them.

On Leadership

2006-02-26T12:58:00.000-08:00

A lot of chatter on leadership in my personal life recently, so I thought I'd put down my thoughts on the matter -- more as a sort of personal bookmark than any attempt at spouting wisdom.

I've reached a point in my own career where leadership has become central to just about everything. As my staff has swelled to approach 40, and my charge extended to three or four functional areas, I can't rely on individual relationships, clubhouse attitude, and strategic 'atta-boys' to get from here to there.

This is the personal side. I've found that while I don't take to it naturally, I do get it. I can even be good at it at times.

As a member of senior management, I'm also seeing the bigger picture challenges with leadership. To be honest, I now understand that most personal challenges with leadership originate at this level. Achieving clarity of purpose of the whole can make the rest of it very easy. Without it, gears grind, and it becomes very hard for people to fulfill the intermediate leadership roles.

But its very hard to achieve clarity of purpose that translates to all levels in the ranks, as well as the full range of major internal and external stakeholders.

The other day, a friend mentioned that Leadership is figuring out where everybody wants to go, then jumping out front and saying 'Follow me!'

There are a few great nuggets in this very simple statement. First, you need to talk to everybody -- employees, investors, partners, independent smart people. You need to listen. This is not to say everyone will agree... some will be flat wrong, others crazy. But this is where you find the answer.

Second, once you've figured it out -- achieved clarity of purpose -- you have to throw all of your weight behind it. Once you've figured it out, stop figuring and take responsibility for pulling everyone along with you.

Third, you have to say 'Follow me!' You have to communicate, in as many different ways as possible, where you are going and why you are going there. You have to preach. The message must be a part of the answer to every question.

If the core organizing principle, the defining element that yields clarity of purpose is simple, you are home free. But odds are that most of 'everybody' that you intend to lead will not have your perspective. You have to speak to them; you have to make them believe. Otherwise you are just a loudmouth, not a leader (or maybe just content to be the boss).

Complexity makes it even tougher to be disciplined about leadership. It becomes harder to motivate individual employees or even entire divisions with the same message that motivates investors. It all has to fit together, or it’s going to fall apart.

What gets us the financial results, the market share, the product capabilities, and the buzz that makes people want to continue to push towards those ends? Its leadership.

Contextual Video -- the gap

2006-02-14T11:39:00.000-08:00

There is an interesting discussion of Exploding TV on A VC today. There is a response in the comments by Dave that claims that relevency in video advertising is the answer to free micro chunked copywrited video distribution

Who cares how long the ad is, as long as it is interesting and relevant? I've pretty much stopped watching live TV, and only watch pre-recorded shows via DVR. Well over 99% of the ads are skipped because I know that they are either not interesting or not relevant

I don't know if I agree with this or not, but it does present an interesting case for the convergence of a couple of peer-based concepts. Clearly, the answer is contextual advertising, which is not a new concept. Implementation in a video context is the tricky part.

Proper targetting requires that you understand the content of the video, at the very least. It could also require knowledge of the individual. Video content classification is much harder than text. You can't scan the content and dig out a relevency heierarchy.

The answer is in the tag. Social tagging can play both sides of this equation. Yourtube and the other social video services already build on the tagging concept. Tag clouds can provide the user component of targetting. The combination of content and user could provide advertisers, publishers, copywrite holders and distributers (social networks) an innovative and effective way to monitze micro-chunked video, if not full video.

Its almost a perfect web2.0 storm... and might actually stimulate this new distribution channel.

Signal in the noise

2006-02-07T03:01:00.000-08:00

I ran across a R/W web post about temporary RSS engagements this morning. I think RSS overload and the burdens of pull-based distribution are starting to generate some applications. Still nothing simple, but I guess its a start.

Some diversionary posts

2006-01-30T18:46:00.000-08:00

I've run across some old digital scribblings, some of which are hauntingly familiar. I didn't really know I had these and don't really remember putting them down. I guess this was an early digital log of mine. I'm going to post a few of them. So much of this stuff is on paper, but I guess I have some digital stuff, too.

At some point, this stuff turned from bleary-eyed pulls at the poetry bong to something that attempted to be lyrics (I learned the guitar in the early 90s). This puppy from October 1999 is somewhere in between:

Create & compete

Analyze & evaluate
Decide and act.
There’s nothing but politics in the way…and you will win.
See all, feel pressure and let go
No solution lacks simplicity
No error lacks intention
No agreement lack misunderstanding.

It’s found without.
Strength conviction and genius through Quality
Comes only in completion:
Scope perspective actors and aggravations
See me, me, and me see you, him, her and them (the motherfuckers)
Doubt question pick and pry.
Without for within…and you will win.

GapingVoid - VC - Jan 08 2006

2006-01-30T13:54:00.000-08:00

GapingVoid - VC - Jan 08 2006
Originally uploaded by spierzchala.

I love these gapingvoid cartoons.

Catchup

2006-01-29T20:22:00.000-08:00

If you are new to this thread (as anyone would be because I'm the only reader -- I like to rehash my notes, ya know), there is a great post on Publishing 2.0 that will serve as a quick catch-up on where all of this RSS, blog, edge, peer, feed discussion stands today.

This piece seems to join a quietly growing chorus of folks starting to focus on the everyday user. Paramount to this trend is the observation that most of the people in the discussion are hyper-users of this technology. Its starting to crystilize that what works for them may not work at all for the everyday email & trade photos public out there.

The implication: The easy-geek that is web2.0 today has scale limits. The economics of web2.0 are about to excert some force on the technology. Either is will adapt to a form more fit for broad scale adoption, or it will settle in a a niche technology.

Mainstreet will never know RSS

2006-01-27T19:37:00.000-08:00

There was a post yesterday on Feld Thoughts about phasing out My.Yahoo. He's basically ditching his longtime personalized homepage for a FeedReader-based start up. He's doing this in part as a way to filter out the distracting noise of the news -- mainly stock market chatter after a read of Fooled By Randomness.

I find this funny because the book had the same effect on me, but to different effect. I actually got reengaged with my yahoo for the first time in ages, using RSS to steadily purge the noise in favor of thought provoking feeds.

Today, A VC discussed the topic, and came out on my end of the experience (I think). Though he's clearly a bigger feedhead than I am and requires software for some purposes.

The most interesting part was in the comments, where I seem to find all of the best material. Mike Orren's reply lays it out clearly:

Friends, in the rest of the country, in the heart of middle America, in major metropolitan markets, there are people: smart people, even VC's and merchant bankers who have NEVER HEARD of RSS. Even worse are those who pretend to grok it but have never used it, even in the context of My Yahoo.

And consumer adoption is almost as bad.

If there is one bit of Media 2.0 hubris (and I'm guilty of many others) that needs to die, it's the notion that RSS feeds are the mass-market editors of 2006.
Don't get me wrong-- I believe a media of ultimate customization is nigh. But most people are lazy. And even lazy people buy stuff. Yahoo! and others who cater to them are going to rake it in.

..Cheers Mike, whoever you are.

Ya Who?

2006-01-26T19:39:00.000-08:00

I'm a little baffled by all of this noise around Yahoo's statement about not being focused on being #1 in search.

Peer-pundits take everything to extremes. Extremes start good conversations, specially in this kind of environment. Its kind of funny to watch everyone punch the topic from one side to the other.

But its also kind of sad -- a kind of Napolian Dynomite solo teather match -- A studied excersize in exploiting momentum for its own sake, with it or against it.

What people seem to forget is that Yahoo is much bigger than search, even if the grass roots go there. Digital media is also bigger than search. To say that there are other relevent score cards, and that these score cards present a better opportunity for lasting advantage is business.

Business is always uncertain, opportunities are never obvious -- certainly not to outsiders, cheerleaders, or enthusiasts. Was Yahoo a genius when they bought Overture? Sponsored search was a novelty at the time. Good move, it turns out. I'm sure there were bad ones, too.

My point is that opportunities do not make themselves, and capitalization requires some level-headed risk taking. In sponsored search MSFT didn't do it, AOL didn't do it. They waited to see if it was real and missed the search advertising game (yeah, yeah, they both make money off of their search-base, but they share it with Y or G today).

Yahoo has said that it thinks they see the next opportunities elsewhere. Can anyone tell me that this is wrong? What is Google doing? Maps, email, video, feed readers, earth. The search tidal wave is receeding and Google knows this as well as Yahoo does. This market will grow slighly faster than the overall online advertising market, and become more an more crowded and commoditized.

Sure, there are all sorts of applications that can and will hang off the side of the gigantic search vessel, and many of these may become very important strategically. Search will be an important aspect of digital media, but not necessarily in a 'who's #1' kind of way.

Audience matters. Search is not the only place to get it. If Y percieves an advantage they can press on other fronts, and is not going to burn all of their fuel chasing yesterday's game, then good for them. They seem wide awake to me.

Recommendation RSS

2006-01-23T04:40:00.000-08:00

Very interesting article on recommendation engines in the NYT this monring. I think these developments are very much on par with the kind of subscription-less preference-based RSS feed platform.

I'd love for my delicios cloud to be the only input to a fully personalized feed...

I'm getting a little frustrated about all of this. It can't be very hard to do.