Who would have thought?

Conventional wisdom is that Google is an extremely well oiled recruitment machine. And yet...
http://www.businessinsider.com/googles-broken-hiring-process-2009-10

The Future?

Interesting perspectives from someone you want to pay attention to:

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_web_in_five_years.php

The Future of Wikipedia

The founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, in defining the mission of Wikipedia clearly stated Wikipedia as a non-profit organization reliant on donations to sustain itself in the business of gathering information. He has also clearly stated that he would not seek advertising on Wikipedia as a means to monetize it. So the question on what is the business model of Wikipedia is an interesting one. Wikipedia works on the model of crowd sourcing relying on the user community to edit and add information. But what motivates these users to contribute with information? How does Wikipedia pay for its staff and development? Is its business model vulnerable because of its heavy reliance on external funding? Thinking about these questions does make one wonder if there are any opportunities for monetization beyond the donations from the users.

Although a lot many questions are raised on the reliability of Wikipedia for information, it is considered to be a fairly accurate source of information given the large number of users enhancing its quality through corrections and citations. With over 3 million articles and a high page rank on Google, Wikipedia could generate enough and more revenue by opening up to advertisers on its pages. Although this goes directly against the stated mission statement, such a move would guarantee the long-term sustainability of Wikipedia, a valuable source of information referenced by 250M people. Furthermore, just as an example, the additional revenue generated through advertising can be used to address social issues such as education of the under-served masses who in turn would be encouraged to contribute to Wikipedia with deeper insight on topics lesser known to the outside world. By encouraging such initiatives, Wikipedia could continue to exist as a non-profit organization minimizing its reliance on external funding and at the same time helping with other social initiatives.

Amongst the many questions, the first question that arises is whether the founder would hurt the sentiments of the users, more specifically the ones who contribute out of a sense of giving or sharing their knowledge by allowing advertisements. But if the new, self-sustainable and socially responsible Wikipedia can continue its existence as a non-profit organization with an objective that fits in line with the sense of giving objective of the contributing users, then there should be no reason for these users to turn away from contributing.

More resources could mean more initiatives or new ways of delivering content. In any case, users could be given the option to turn off advertisements. There is no doubt that Wikipedia would never have achieved its meteoric success if it were a for-profit entity. However, at present, less than 2% of its financing is through earned income which comprises of published DVDs (done in Germany) and a split ad revenue partnership model with Answers.com.

The underlying premise in the future would be to continue operating as a non-profit organization but eliminating the fragility of its existence which at the moment is based on a heavy reliance on donations. Interesting Jimmy Wales has been hunting for riches with a new for-profit company built on the same wiki idea.

By Sharad Piplani, MBA Class 2010

Digital Books

There has been a growing interest in the digital book market this year, with many of the big players bringing products to market. Amazon surprised with their original Kindle, a technology that it would have no doubt calculated as one day eating into its traditional book market. This year has seen Sony enter the fray, and now Barnes and Noble has also come out with an Android powered eReader ('the Nook'). And in the background are lurking devices from companies such as Asus and News Corp (which mistakenly sees this business model as a panacea for the declining newspaper industry).

But what are they fighting for? The market for education has to be huge - gone will be school bags overstuffed with books; everything on one, streamlined device just makes sense. But beyond education, the picture becomes a little murkier. Is there a huge market for standalone book readers, for an additional device? Possibly not. An intuitive solution would be the merger of the laptop and book reader into an all in one solution tablet computer. Carrying around a smartphone and tablet means that in two devices I have a phone, GPS, PDA, computer and all of my books and documents; that sounds like a powerful value proposition. But the technology is not there yet, and it may be a while before a vendor is not only able to amalgamate all of these devices, but also wrap them up in an interface that is intuitive and productive (and there is still the issue of colour which would be a requisite for textbooks - current eReaders are black and white). A smartphone, a laptop AND a book reader, is just one device too many.

But there are other barriers other than technology. One of the reasons behind the rush to enter this nascent market is the drive to establish a digital book ecosystem and capture as much market share as possible. Businesses in this sector see the iTunes model and understand the overwhelming power it has given Apple within the digital music sector. And yet those very same companies, particularly Amazon (which usually has a good feel for its customers needs), are making the same mistakes as the music industry when it was dragged kicking and screaming into the digital age. One fact not mentioned enough is that buying a Kindle book does not give you control over it; the book sits on Amazon's servers, and should Amazon wish to delete it, they can (as they did recently with some of George Orwell's books over a copyright dispute - customers were not consulted, and one morning just found they no longer had access to a purchase they had made). This form of DRM, and any other measures that prevent customers from doing anything they would do with a physical book, will hold back this market. It was interesting to see that the Nook has a function whereby a digital book can be lent to a friend; on closer inspection it came as no surprise to find that this feature was restricted to the point of being useless.

Overall it's an interesting, but promising market. How quickly it matures will depend not only on technology and vision, but also on whether the players have learnt from past strategic mistakes of the other industries that have made a tentative transition to digital.

By M. Sumra, MBA Class 2010

Google Waving

It's been one week since I received my invitation to Google Wave, and I must say that due to the lack of contacts who are using this wonderful platform, my experience has thus far been limited to experimentation with the interface and a couple waves sent back-and-forth with two friends. I will not dwell much on all the features available in Wave, as I am sure you will be able to read extensive reviews in the myriad articles circulating the blogosphere. You can even watch the 100-minute video presentation of Google Wave on YouTube, even.

What I would like to focus my review, however, is on the practicality and potential use that I see from this product. I am not a blogger, nor am I a social media fanatic, yet I still see myself getting hooked to Wave once it goes mainstream and all my friends and family start using it. The reason is quite simple, really. It brings everything that is communication for me under one roof. I have followed Google's moves very closely since 2002, and I remember when it stated its vision on communication when it launched Gmail in 2004. Back then, Google said that its goal--as part of organising all the world's information--was to become the world's communication hub. Of course, this vision seemed rather lofty at the time, after all Google had just launched Gmail and its success was yet to be proven.

Fast-forward five years, and you have a much-evolved Gmail service, a Google Docs platform that is increasingly eating market share away from Microsoft Office, Picasa Web Albums, YouTube, Google Maps, and Google Voice. All of these have one thing in common: they enable people to create and share content, whether it be emails, documents, photos, videos, driving directions, or voice conversations. Google had, rather inconspicuously, built all the pieces of its grand "communications hub" vision. The only thing left to do was to integrate them all under one common platform. Enter Google Wave.

OK, so Google has managed to centralise all our communication and collaboration needs under one roof. It will certainly simplify our lives and blur once and for all the lines between online and offline, voicemail and email. Yet where I think it will have the greatest impact is in the enterprise and education domains. Companies and universities both large and small can build their entire messaging and collaborative software architecture on Wave, leapfrogging archaic systems such as Blackboard, Exchange, LotusNotes, and Outlook (actually, Gmail already leapfrogs the latter two). Moreover, the fact that it an open, federalised platform means that it has the potential to scale very fast and connect with social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook, ERP systems such as Oracle and SAP, and even interactive games. The extent to which Wave can scale is really only limited by the extent of our own imagination. It truly has the potential to become the most indispensable utility of the 21st century (yes, even more than the mobile phone itself).

So, that's my take on Wave. Sure, the look and feel of the product is sleek and its HTML-5 underpinnings make you forget at times that you are working inside a web browser, and it will take time to get used to new features such as "playback" and "mute". But all those things are merely aesthetic. The true juice behind this product is the power it has to change the world of communication as we know it.


By Mariano Montefusco (MBA Class 2010)

Online Newspapers

News Corp's recent announcement of a complete subscription based digital strategy by 2010 seems to have generated a degree of excitement amongst commentators, based principally on the premise that if anyone can do it, News Corp can. And yet at this time that enthusiasm is grounded in very little substance. News Corp has not shown the same business acumen in the digital world as it has in the print one; MySpace is a prime example, as are failed attempts in the past to impose subscription models for news.

There is a danger here that newspaper people are looking at other models such as mp3 and online video, and rationalizing that if people are willing to pay for those, then they will be more than happy to pay for news on a per article basis. The FT seemed very pleased with itself last week, comparing it's proposed model favorably to iTunes. But there is one major flaw in this approach - a prosaic newspaper article does not hold the same value proposition as an mp3 track by my favorite artist. I will pay for music, which is something I will derive pleasure from listening to over and over again. Can the same be said for the headline article ('Briton May Hang for Killings in Baghdad') in the Sunday Times at this very moment? No matter how passionate I may be about news, and even if I were to pay whatever over-inflated price that will in the future be charged per article, I will never read that piece again. Even the most enthusiastic consumer will quickly realize that a per article model has a very poor value proposition. And add to that the fact that news is also available 24/7 on television, radio and on the Internet, the idea of paying for individual. articles on a pay as you read basis, already sounds DOA.

Some specialist publications such as financial papers will likely find a more willing subscriber base; though taking the FT for example, buying a physical paper will likely be a lot more economical than paying for every article one by one. And therein lies what will be a big problem with a model such as this; an online newspaper should be cheaper than the physical copy. This is one area where Murdoch and co. can actually learn from the experience of music execs; your customers know that online should be cheaper, do not take them for fools.

This does not mean that there are not going to be new business models out there that newspapers might be able to employ; they just don't seem to be coming up with them yet. The newspaper that institutes an appealing subscription strategy will not only profit from the viewpoint of revenue, but in a future world of closed digital newspapers, will likely also pull in new subscribers at the expense of the competition. These should be powerful incentives to get it right first time.

And then there is one last point. Perhaps a change in technology and the resulting availability of information, may mean that the model of a newspaper as a crucial vehicle for information is no longer a relevant one. Perhaps newspapers, as a mainstream entity, are going to go the same way as the telegram. What is for certain is that we will now in the next five to ten years.

By M. Sumra, MBA Class 2010

Movies and Metal Detectors

Further evidence that this industry really has lost the plot.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jul/14/mobile-phones-and-movie-security

Copyright

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2009/07/fry_on_copyright.html

Some of what Stephen Fry said on copyright echoes an earlier post on this blog. To stay relevant the music and movie industry really needs to take on board the following points; and though there is nothing here that is not intuitive/plain obvious, these appear to be alien concepts to movie and music executives. And for the record, yes piracy is wrong, but that is not your principal problem at this time.

1. Replace your management teams with people who do not regard all of their customers as criminals or potential criminals; surely no business that views its customers as the enemy is going to succeed.
2. Realise that a continuing failure to understand changes both in technology and consumer tastes, are a far greater threat to your long term prospects than piracy. It will take time to re-orientate your business model; trying to wring as much as you can from your customers in the mean time will not bode well for the longer term.
3. Put in as much effort into addressing the needs of your paying customer base, as you have into patronizing advertising and PR campaigns that have only served to alienate you from all consumers.
4. Appreciate that consumers are willing to pay for digital downloads, but also accept that they are not stupid; they know that downloads should be cheaper than physical media, and they will no longer pay above the odds for music and film (the price of new DVDs and CDs is still exorbitant - and is why sales of physical media will continue to fall). Your short termism on pricing will keep downloads as a niche market, while slowly suffocating sales of physical media; this is not optimal.
5. Try to re-build a relationship based upon trust with your customers; people are more likely to see piracy as wrong if they are well disposed towards you, just as they are more likely to buy your product if they don't think that you are constantly trying to fleece them.
6. Revisit the whole issue of DRM for digital video; people who want to obtain pirated movies can do so with the minimum of effort; so exactly what purpose does DRM serve (other than to annoy your paying customers)? Make it easy for me to buy a DVD and rip it into a format of my choosing (since I have already paid for it). You may point to the fact that you have already done this with music, but that move was initially made to give Amazon a competitive advantage over iTunes, and when that failed, it was used as leverage to force higher music prices from Apple. This should not have been why you abolished music DRM, and it showed that you had in fact learnt nothing.

Chrome vs Windows

The headlines today have been predictable, framing Google's OS announcement as an imminent threat to Windows' hegemony. And although this is where Google should be going strategically, this play is by no means in the bag. Even if Google comes up with a phenomenal operating system, the impetus to switch from Windows will be tempered first and foremost by practical considerations. The adoption of a future Chrome OS will depend critically on Google's ability to provide a seamless alternative to Microsoft Office. The OS by itself will mean little without the programs that people use on it. Google will surely be pushing Docs hard from now until the release of their OS.

So provide a better OS environment, supply the equivalent applications free of charge , and add to this a sweetener for hardware manufacturers (that box is already ticked, Chrome OS will be free), and you may well be on to something. But the lethargic adoption of the Android platform should serve as a gentle reminder that just because it says Google on the box, it is not a guarantee of immediate and overwhelming success. Like Microsoft (and unlike Apple), Google will be reliant on innovation from hardware manufacturers; Android handsets have thus far not exactly caught the imagination on that front. Nonetheless the current technological environment favours Google if it is bold and aggressive over the coming years. Taking a first tentative step with netbooks makes sense, as the rationale behind a netbook does not fit well with a clunky operating system like Windows. But move to desktop computers and laptops, and the picture becomes a little less clear cut. The onus in on the consumer to break a habit (albeit an unproductive one), and this will be Google's greatest challenge.

Google OS

Now it starts to get interesting:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html

A Missed Opportunity?

Did the big mobile telephone operators miss a trick with 3G? Did the astronomical costs of securing 3G licenses prevent them from innovating and shaking up the broadband market? The value proposition of having access to broadband anywhere surely remains a very attractive one for the customer; and with a little more tweaking and investment, 3G speeds could be consistently superior to the real world speeds that currently come with broadband from fixed lines. My 8Mbps ADSL connection does not deliver more than 2-2.5 Mbps on a good day, and this is despite the fact that I live very close to the exchange; furthermore the fixed nature of my connection means that it is only accessible throughout my house. Were my mobile phone company offering mobile broadband with good coverage in all urban areas, a comparable download speed, and the same download limit for a competitive price, I would switch over tomorrow.

Could you be any more patronizing?

It would appear that in the eyes of the film industry, purchasing a DVD legally equates to being of sound moral character, regardless of whether you may actually also be a serial cannibal or war criminal in your spare time.

All Change

Who plays video games, and where do they play them. These are two facets of a traditionally unimaginative industry that have been undergoing significant, disruptive change over the last three years. The disruption has come in part from one company’s decision to gamble all by choosing innovation over convention, and in another part from general advances in technology that have organically thrown up a whole new class of competitor.

The first of these two disruptions is the Nintendo Wii, which during its development was already considered in many quarters to be dead on arrival. And yet it succeeded magnificently. Though some of that success can be attributed to its innovative interface, the bulk of it was due to the creation of a new customer segment normally excluded by the games industry. Nintendo shifted the rules of competition by selling video games to a previously untapped customer base (the general population), and thereby wrong footed both Sony and Microsoft. For a long time these latter two companies treated the Wii with derision, even as Nintendo first caught, and then surpassed its’ rivals sales figures. Both Sony and Microsoft recently unveiled their own motion sensitive systems of control, and in doing so finally acknowledged the fact that they had been out thought.

For Nintendo, nothing less than a market-changing concept was going to prevent their demise in this round of the console wars; the momentum amongst the last generation of consoles was very much with the PS2 and XBOX. Common wisdom had always been that it was processor power first and foremost that fuelled sales; this is the strategy that Microsoft and Sony followed, centred on the needs and wants of ‘hard core gamers’ (who I always imagine to be thirty somethings still living in their parent’s basements, though that may be a little unkind). Nintendo bucked these conventions by doing a number of things in complete contrast. It released a relatively underpowered, cheap console, with an interface not moulded around the fist person shooter (the staple diet of the hard core gamer), and complemented by games that appealed across the ages and sexes. Microsoft and Sony sneered; the hard-core gamers decried the Wii to be a toy. But suddenly people with a previously fleeting interest in gaming (i.e. most people), began picking up the Wii wand and playing tennis or going bowling. The game changed, and Nintendo soared ahead (though whether they stay ahead is an entirely different matter).

The second disruption has gone one-step further than the Wii, as it impacts not only who plays, but also where they play. Gaming on mobile phones has really come of its own recently, and is suddenly looking like an increasingly interesting and lucrative market. A few years ago the proposition of playing video games on a mobile telephone was fairly ludicrous (space invaders at best). But since then there have been substantial advances both in processor power and screen size, making this a very viable gaming platform. I have both a Wii and an XBOX, but it has been a while since either has seen any use; the simple reason is that I do not have time to tether myself to the television anymore. And yet I have been able to snatch several minutes every day to play on my iPhone, an experience that has been more than adequate for a casual gamer such as myself. There are now a number of mobile phone games out there that are perfectly acceptable substitutes for their console equivalents; this should start to ring alarm bells for console makers and traditional gaming houses. The same customer satisfaction for a quarter of the price, at a place and time of my choosing; this is the value proposition of mobile gaming.

There is almost little point in owning a dedicated portable console anymore; why spend extra on hardware, and then also spend further on over priced games that are already available on a device that is always in your pocket? Clearly Sony agrees with this; their recent release of the PSP Go is a defensive move aimed squarely at the iPod Touch/iPhone platform. Even the traditional software houses appear to be finally taking note of the mobile market, though at this time it is the newer, smaller companies such as Gameloft and Firemint that are firing the imagination.

It is an exciting time to be a player in this industry, and it is an even more exciting time to be a consumer. Upcoming technologies such as Microsoft’s project Natal are giving a glimpse of the future, and it looks compelling.

Facebook's Future?

Some of the more interesting stuff actually came later in the interview, concerning Facebook's approach to privacy and data sharing - would call it almost enlightened. Still not sure where they are going with their business model though, and am not half as enthused as the interviewer was. Even if Facebook comes up with some type of Paypal system for example (as is rumoured), there is no guarantee that Facebook users will embrace it simply on account of the branding. It will have to have some value added, and this is what is going to test the level of talent currently employed at Facebook.

An Uncertain Future

There is no gentle way to put this. Microsoft is a company that has been in trouble ever since the day it tied up its Windows monopoly. Unless there is a fundamental shift in how it thinks and where it competes, the next 10-15 years will see it fade into irrelevance.

The core of the problem is that after thirty years, there is nothing more to Microsoft than Windows. What established Windows’ dominance was a monopoly, and ever since that time, Microsoft has approached potential new revenue streams with that same monopoly mindset. Throw enough money at it, proprietize it, muscle out the competition, and you’re in. But Windows was a special case, and the environment in which it achieved dominance will likely never exist again. The pace of change and innovation that came with the Internet means that unless an imitator such as Microsoft can immediately enter the market with a quality product, it is already too late. Innovation is the only game now, and it is one that Microsoft in its long history has never played. Recently Steve Balmer (current Microsoft CEO and in it from the beginning) was quoted as allaying fears about his company’s inability to make any head way with Search, by saying that it had taken almost 12 years for them to get Windows right. If I were an institutional investor in Microsoft, I would be very worried to hear this.

Funnily enough there is one sector Microsoft entered long before anyone else. But once they were out there on their own, it was as if they didn’t know what to do next. There was no one to emulate, no one to lead the innovation, and so they just sat there with a stripped down, and wholly inadequate version of their operating system. Three years ago the iPhone came from nowhere and completely jump-started the smart phone market. That market now belongs to Apple and RIM (I say that with a full appreciation of the fact that Nokia are the market leaders in terms of sales), and three years on Microsoft are still working on their reply. It is too late.

With the exception of the XBOX, Microsoft does not have any core competencies outside Windows. It has adopted a reactionary posture to its environment; hence the launches and then subsequent re-launches. The Zune, their search offerings over the years, even the new incarnation of Hotmail; all knee jerk reactions to products that are way ahead on the curve. This is a problem.

And then there is Windows; in its current form, its days are numbered. What do the majority of people do with a computer? They interact with the Web; they perform simple word processing and possibly spreadsheet tasks. Do I need to be tied to an expensive, clunky operating system for that? Not for much longer. Once products such as Google Docs mature, they will provide real (and free) alternatives to Microsoft Office; then why will I need a computer with Windows on it? Ten years ago I was using Windows XP, Office, Hotmail, and Internet Explorer. With the exception of Office (running on my Mac), I do not use any of those Microsoft products anymore. And the reason is that the Internet has given me choice; suddenly there are better alternatives, and I can move freely between them. Competing in an environment such as this is not natural for Microsoft; not having full control is a state of mind that is beyond them.

The XBOX has been one success story, though part of that has to be attributed to Sony’s completely inept handling of the PS3. Recent announcements by Microsoft indicate they understand the importance of positioning the device as an entertainment hub. But because it is Microsoft, I fear they will not be able to translate that understanding into a functional, consumer friendly and therefore ultimately successful strategy. And there is competition in this market coming from unexpected quarters. I was looking at TVs today (time to kill); this is an area where with the exception of the transition to flat screens, there has traditionally been very little innovation. And yet there it was, a networked TV that serves as a media hub, able to handle all the popular open formats. The networking part was still a little raw, but it was only a couple of steps away from being the finished article (kudos Samsung).

There are no doubt a lot of talented, capable people at Microsoft. But time is running out. The billions made in net income last year ($17.681 billion apparently – thank you Wikipedia) guarantee nothing. GMs recent tribulations are an apt demonstration of what happens when you are unable to adapt. Microsoft is walking that path even now.

The Nature of Innovation

Though the title of this following article is not grounded in any current reality, it is nonetheless a very interesting read:

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1902604,00.html

How Many Tweets?

http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/cs/2009/06/new_twitter_research_men_follo.html

Phones of Summer

Sounds a little like my favourite Don Henley song. Introducing the three contenders that will slug it out for attention over the next few months:

First, weighing in at a slim 135g, the great, great, great (etc.) grand child of the original PDA, with the hopes (for staving off bankruptcy) of an entire company resting on its shoulders, is the Palm Pre.



With an interface straight out of Cupertino, and a keyboard that would be at home in Waterloo (Ontario), the Pre is Palm's attempt at a comeback the likes of which we have not seen since Return of The Jedi. I don't see this as being of much interest to switchers, but for new Smartphone customers, this certainly looks like it could be an attractive proposition.

And in another corner somewhere, the pride of Scandinavia, representing a company that has often resembled a deer in headlights since the release of the iPhone, weighing in at a plump 150g and sporting the obligatory touch screen, it's the Nokia N97.



I fear though that the above advert will be a far more satisfying experience than the actual handset. This phone looks clunky, and if the interface is similar to recent form, no-one I suspect will be moved to tears by its elegance. Nokia are still the biggest handset company in the world, but their designs of late (and not just in the Smartphone market) have been prosaic, and in the battle for hearts and minds, they have slipped well behind Apple and RIM.

And finally, from Cupertino, the big dog of the pack, soon to appear in its third incarnation, with what are rumoured to be minimal changes in form factor, and possibly supporting 3.75G, please welcome (in July), the iPhone mkIII. There are no pictures or videos at this time, and it will not even officially exist until next month when it will (probably) be announced at the WWDC (which in line with the theme of this article, sounds conveniently like a wrestling tournament, but is fact the World Wide Developers Conference). I am looking for turn by turn GPS (along with something to stick it to my car windscreen), a better screen and HD video out. Like last years 3G set, this will be more an evolution than a revolution.

And so there we have it; the comeback kid, the rank outsider and the establishment favourite. You will you be backing?

A Tweet too Far

It’s Groundhog Day again, and this time there’s not a gopher like creature in sight. In the late 90’s money was thrown at 'upcoming' tech companies, and we know where that ended up. And in a way, it was not long before the concept of making large investments without a plan was again resurrected. You could almost overlook Google’s purchase of YouTube, but it was a fine example of buy first, think later. The Web was starting to become an interesting, interactive place, YouTube was a hot commodity, and Google just went with the flow. But at the time of the acquisition Google cannot have envisaged they were making a purchase simply in order to provide the general public with a forum for sharing short, comical videos involving animals, children and other potentially (un)hilarious props. The fact that YouTube currently does not have any real income stream cannot be something that Google is satisfied with. Though there were (and still are) certainly opportunities to turn YouTube into a real business, the Googlers don’t appear to have had the ambition (or perhaps time?) to pursue those opportunities with any great vigour. And now websites such as Hulu appear to be outflanking Google with regards to one of those opportunities, by becoming the principal site for legally watching TV on the Internet. Hulu is only available in America, and it is a long way from being a success (and is carrying the liability of being at the whim of TV companies and execs, who like their music industry counterparts, on the whole just do not get it), but they are at least making a concerted effort to tap into a thus far untapped income stream.

MySpace is another example; News Corp was lauded shortly after the purchase, but people eventually moved on, and the price that was paid for a business with no revenue stream suddenly looks to be unreasonable. What makes any of these companies such as MySpace or Facebook especially valuable is the buzz around them; none of them are making any proper amounts of money, none of them really know how they are going to do it. It is a psychological phenomenon; once the next exciting thing comes along, the herd moves on; the most recent example is Facebook. Had Mark Zuckerberg (owner) cashed in his chips six to nine months ago, he would have received an astronomical valuation (not to say that the current estimates of $4-6 billion are paltry, but they were even more ludicrous last year). And now Facebook is a company that provides a free service essentially allowing friends to stay in touch, with very little excitement factor, because inexplicably, everyone has moved onto Twitter over the last few months. And this brings me back to why it is Groundhog Day (sans gopher).

Technology pundits are falling over themselves to egg Google on to put down $1 billion and buy Twitter. This valuation is based simply on the fact that this is a suitably large number. The rationale is that Google does not have any real time search capability; and should the purchase not work out, then oh well, it was just a billion (and Google has plenty more of those). This is patently absurd logic, and if Google really is as clever as we all appear to think they are, they will have seen where a lot of the big acquisitions have gone these last few years (destination nowhere). In fact as I was sipping my coffee this morning, I read yet another article on Google/Twitter, where the CEO of Google was quoted as suggesting that they do not have to buy every company they want to work with. To me that makes a lot more sense, and indicates that perhaps the rush for tech M&A without a plan may finally be subject to the forces of reason and common sense.

Wolfram Alpha First Impressions

As Public Enemy so succinctly put it (now many years ago), 'don't believe the hype'. This is particularly apt for the 'computational knowledge engine', Wolfram Alpha, that went live today. Wolfram Alpha, sounds like the name for a space station from the Star Trek Universe (a good start to its life). Touted for the last few days/weeks as a potential competitor to Google (which it is not), even a 'Google Killer' (which it is really not), my first impression is that this is a work in progress, that has the potential to develop into something useful. It is less Google and more Ask Jeeves on steroids (for those who remember or even still use the esoteric search butler). One of the first things that occurred to me as I was typing a query was that I don't really access information like this anymore, by actually going to the website; I tend to use either the search box toolbar on my browser or the Dashboard widgets that come with OS X - I was pleased to see that both are available in the downloads section of the site.

I tried a few simple searches: the name of my hometown (returned the population, a map and the local time), 'the number of people in England' (which it seems to have got wrong, equating England with the UK and returning a figure of 60.8 million - sorry, Scotland, ROI and Wales), 'normal range of WBC' (I am a doctor so this is the kind of thing that unfortunately first pops into my head - the engine answered correctly), and 'the square root of 20736' (which everyone, including Wolfram Alpha knows is 144).

I am going to download the widget and try and play around with it in the coming weeks. Initial impressions are that this is not likely to become my first port of call for information any time soon.

To and Fro

I thought this was a pretty effective ad; it was admittedly completely inaccurate, but then that's not the point.



And this was the response (check and mate I believe).