Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Yahoo: A declining star (II)

I wrote on the previous post that for a particular combination of search terms, Yahoo seemed to offer better results than Google. I read long time ago that in fact search was turning to be a commodity. I didn’t believe then, and I’m not convinced yet, despite the simple test I described on my post.

Anyway Yahoo has services that are (in my opinion) far better than Google’s. My favourite is a nearly unknown project called myweb, which could be said to be related to Google Bookmarks or Google Notebook. I also like Yahoo Pipes although I think it needs something easier to extract information from pages (not structured sources), something like Dapper. Of course, you also have one of the best news sites with Yahoo news, and the killer-app of online photography (this one an acquisition): Flickr.

So Yahoo has a decent search engine, some very good services. Notwithstanding, it has each time less importance, less market share and more problems. I don’t know where it all started, but today Yahoo looks like a knocked out company.

Are Google’s developers better than Yahoo’s? I don’t think so. Although maybe there is a problem when (as Jeremy told a few days a ago) in your company people are being laid off and is not the first time.

What makes Yahoo a “declining star”?

I think the true difference is the absence of ambition. I see in Google they have the goal of changing the world. They fight to be the first, to make things different. Some of its movements are successful, some are not. But they always try to make a new twist. They try to rethink everything. And they continue doing it even when they lead the race.

No doubt, you need good leadership to point a (and keep) your goal. I think leadership, ambition and vision are quite related.

Yahoo doesn’t seem to have that ambition/vision/leadership.

Yahoo: A declining star(I)

I like products coming from Google, and I’m usually less critic with Google’s errors than with others’. I use Google search, Gmail, Blogger… I even have a ridiculous financial position on Google (8 shares).

I’m a Google fan.

But I wasn’t conscious of how much I was a Google fan until I was preparing this post. I was getting ready to write about Yahoo’s CEO (Jerry Yang) resignation, and widening the scope, about Yahoo’s future.

One of the obvious paths for post-Jerry’s Yahoo is being acquired by Microsoft. Microsoft tried it hard before summer, and many Yahoo investors would certainly welcome a bit of money. Especially when they don’t know where will be Yahoo in (say) two years.

But now the price would be less than before summer, and it seems that Microsoft it’s only interested on the search.

I always thought that a Microsoft-Yahoo merge (which is different from a Yahoo’s acquisition by Microsoft) would be a great idea to put more competition on the table. Internet is the present and desktop have no-future. As consequence, Microsoft has plenty money but has no future. And Yahoo could give Microsoft the future it doesn’t have.

The obvious problem with a merge is that it would require a new leadership with an ambitious vision for the merged company. And that leadership currently on the table seems to be the Microsoft’s one. Moreover, it seems to be a leadership that, from a few years ago, is completely reactive. It fought against Internet (Netscape), against Open Source (Mozilla), against SAAS (Google). If Microsoft is a healthy company is because of the same products of nearly 15 years ago: Windows and Office.

When I was thinking about this, my feelings went quickly to that video of Steve Ballmer jumping all over the place and saying “developers, developers…”. I couldn’t remember Mr. Ballmer’s name, and I had a typo writing the keywords, so I searched for

developers, develepors microsoft

I put the same words on Yahoo and Google. And aside that both suggested me to correct the typo, Yahoo’s results were, for what I was looking for, far more relevant, than Google’s ones.

For the record, Microsoft results seemed to compete on another (let’s say “amateur”) league.

I know that in no way this was a scientific test. But for me it was quite shocking that Yahoo had (for that particular query in my particular opinion) much better results than Google. And it made me think about Yahoo. I’ll try to write some thoughts in the next post.

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Gmail and the future

As I said on my last post, I think that integration of Video and voice chat could be part of a greater strategy. What would be that strategy?

In my opinion it should have two parts.

The first one would include the ability to search on your communications. Not only your written communications, but also your oral/video communications. The technology is not too far. We can today search on Youtube's speeches, probably thanks to GOOG 411. The only thing Google would need would be vast amounts of disk space, as video and voice need far more resources than pure text. Anyway, considering the prices of data storage, I don't see it too distant in the future.

The other element in the strategy is related with the ubiquity of communications. Every single day, less of our communications takes place through our desktop PC, and more of them goes through cell phones, netbooks and other on-the-go devices. Being tied to what telecommunications companies allow is "dangerous" (for Google), because sometimes, their interests are different from Google's ones. That's one of the reasons why Andoid is so important, and, as I mentioned on my first comment about this topic, why it's important for Google that white-space spectrum is open.

With those two things in mind, you would have your communication center in your pocket all day. You could instantly remember every word you said or was told to you by phone, video or email.

Obviously I know that this strategy would have privacy problems. No more than today with the mail, but people would be more conscious.

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

"The day Skype died" revisited

Sometimes you realize you've written a weak post too late. It was my case with yesterday's annotation.

I thought nobody would even read it. But it seems that, because of a trackback at Gmail Blog, I was wrong.

Fortunately, Matt Sealey (thank you, Matt), was kind enough to comment, pointing out one of the weakest parts. He says that Google's movement only affects a portion of Skype's services. With Gmail you won't be able to call to real phones (he says "yet"). And so Gmail isn't a fully replacement of Skype.

That's absolutely true.

It's also true that Google's plugin to get the Video Chat isn't available for Linux.

And it's also completely true that many email accounts are not Gmail. Hotmail and Yahoo accounts are very popular, probably more than Gmail. And through Windows Messenger you could make voice and video calls.

What I was trying to say is that the Google's movement is "good enough" to defeat Skype. And that this movement seems part (or let's say "could be part") of a larger strategy. Let's try to explain the first and left the larger strategy to other post.

We have a free Skype-to-Skype, because there are others services that make the money. This revenue comes, among other things, from SkypeOut minutes, which is a non-free service to call (at a rate) to real phones (whether land or mobile based). Rates of SkypeOut minutes are cheaper than traditional phone companies, in particular when you call to other countries' phones.

But there are many companies that provides similar services. In Spain, you can even buy cards that allow you to make long distances call at a cheap rate. In fact, because of VoIP ("calls through Internet"), international calls through traditional phone companies are much cheaper now than five years ago.

What made Skype different to the other companies is that with Skype you had in the same place calls Skype-to-Skype free. It was like a communications centre.

However, there was a trend already in place where calls to real phones from Skype were fewer. I think that's because cell phones are a pervasive technology in many countries and, at least in Spain, you call Skype-to-Skype if you're at home and it's just talk, or use your cell phone if you're away.

Going to Ebay's third quarter results, and looking at revenue per user and Skype-to-Skype minutes, we see that while users and Skype-to-Skype minutes grows (in a way that the make Skype-to-Skype minutes per registered user without trend), the revenue grows much less (in a way that it can be seen a falling trend on the revenue per registered user)







2007-32007-42008-12008-22008-3
Registered users (million)245,7276,3309,3338,2370,2
Revenue (thousands)93823110364119791130151137201
Revenue per user (calculated)381,86399,44387,30384,83370,61
Skype to Skype minutes (millions)9,811,914,214,816
S2S minutes per registered user0,0400,0430,0460,0440,043

Before Google's movement, Skype already needed to rethink about it's future, from a business point of view.

Now comes Google with its offer. And then, you (as a user) have two options.

Install a program, and try to convince the people on the other side to do the same, just for the case you want to talk to them...

...or do it from your browser, with your contact lists already there.

Yes, I know that it seems there's not many differences. With Google you have to install a plugin.

But I see it very different. First, because a plugin is less frightening for many people. But second and much more important, because you already communicate with that people through Gmail.

That's Gmail's power. Gmail is now THE communications centre. You can communicate asynchronously (with mail), nearly synchronously (with text chat), and in real-time (with video and voice). From your browser.

The day Skype died

I read it first on Google Operating System, but I haven't seen too much buzz on the blogs I follow.

For me today is the day Skype has definitively died.

Maybe it was long before from a pure bussiness view. There hasn't been anything new since Skype's adquisition by Ebay. And my contacts on Skype were offline most of the time lately.

But from now I don't have any reason to even install Skype. Of course, there were a lot of others programs apart from Skype.

But from today I can open Gmail, and chat with video and voice from the browser. And my contacts are already there.

But I think the movement hits further than Skype. I'm afraid this only the begining.

Monday, November 10, 2008

MobuzzTV

I heard about MobuzzTV for the first time long time ago. I don't watch news on TV, (I prefer to read than watch), so much less watch on the Internet. I didn't pay much attention then.
From time to time, I read about Mobuzz on Enrique's blog, but again I didn't pay much attention.
Last week MobuzzTV announced they would had to close unless they got 120,000 euros in donations. I read it first in Enrique's blog, then in Borja's one. I agreed much more with Borja than with Enrique, but again I didn't pay much attention.
But today I read this Borja's post, and I thought Borja had lost a bit of focus. Then I read Enrique's post which is previous, and then I didn't know who has lost focus, and according to the comments, balance.

I also read Varsavsky's blog. Similar to Enrique, although I learnt Martin’s (and probably Enrique’s) shares on MobuzzTV were a gift.

As Borja says, I think companies exist to make money. If you can't get money enough to keep your company going, you should think about how to make more money or how reduce your expenses.

If you can figure out how to increase your income or how to reduce your expenses, or if even after doing it, it's not enough, maybe you should close.

If you think it’s only a matter of budget (your idea is great, and it’s going to work, you just need enough time), then you should rethink(everybody thinks their ideas are great). If you continue thinking, you’ll have to put more money in, and/or to sell your idea to others. If you can’t throw in more money, maybe (again) you should close.

Ignoring comments like these, saying that come from people that don’t know anything about entrepreneurship, or that they come from people’s envy or resentment, it’s like looking at the finger when someone points the moon. It seems that there have been people that made a donation of 0.60 euro, to later send a letter to the media telling that Mobuzz didn’t want to return the money back (which by the way is wicked), but it doesn’t mean all the critics did it. And even if all the critics have done it, it doesn’t mean what critics say is false.

Of course, MobuzzTV can ask for donations (as it did). It’s a way to increase income. I don’t think it's a great idea (see above). But they can try.

I’ve also read donations have legal implications (enterprises in Spain can’t receive donations). I don’t think they’ll have problems. It also has legal implications selling shares (it seems that in Spain you have to inform very carefully about investment oportunities). Both accepting donations and selling shares were legally risky.

I usually prefer shares in exchange of money when you give money to a (nearly) bankrupt company. I prefer donations to NGO, and loans or capital with companiues. In fact, with the recent finantial crisis, we’ve seen a lot of those helps, some in exchange of shares and others for free, and I know I'm not alone.

But in this case the money is of those who voluntarily donate. If people feel fraud, they can ask for the money back or go to the judge. If Public Administration feels fraud, it should investigate. It wouldn’t be the first time

If I were from a capital-risk firm, I should doubt about these people’s ability to manage budgets. These people say they had a crisis and they were not able to cut expenses, foresee, plan, or adapt. It resembles when people say they have financial problems and they go to the TV.

The example Borja points seems an entrepreneur much more reliable than Mobuzz. And if your company can’t survive, probably you learnt. Next time (if there’s “next”) you’ll do better. That’s something companies can do, and people (in Spain) cannot.

But in any case I wouldn’t call this episode "a lie" or "a fraud". I can’t believe it was planned as a marketing tactic. They (Martin, Enrique, or the rest of the MobuzzTV people) have burnt too much personal credit here.

Friday, November 7, 2008

Jobs

Sometimes I read a couple of posts not directly related, and I start to think about a topic I didn't expected.

This time, it all started with a post of Enrique Dans.

Enrique asked what happens when your company is looking for new employees, enters a professional social network like Linkedin to find the right person for the job, and discover that you have a completely updated profile, showing that in a way you’re "in the market".

Enrique's post is very interesting as whole, but I kept thinking about what Enrique calls "the switchers": people who change from one work to another, and then to another, always looking for a better salary. And then I remember another tactic used by some of my coworkers: coming to my boss, telling him that he/she had and offer from another company and they were leaving, and getting a better salary for not leaving.

For me, jobs are more than salary, but I always thought it was a bad game for the companies, as they were rewarding the people less faithful.

I think it would be better to pay your employees what you think you can AND should pay. Trying to "retain talent" before "talent" is even concious he/she can leave, or before he/she is wanting to leave.

Those were my thoughts when turned up Seth Godin writing a key thought
If talent is so important that you are betting the company on it, why aren't you actually investing in finding and retaining that talent?


May I ask you to read it again?

Ten years ago, job offers came in many cases mouth to ear or from the newspaper. And a new employee was very similar to another new employee. Sort of meat at a butcher's. There were also headhunter but they were very expensive and for key positions.

Today it seems to be the same. But now the game is different. Seth was telling it to the employers, but it could be aplied to the employees.

And it's different because you create your own reputation, without being unfaithful to your current employer. Not only by building a network in Linkedin. But also for answering questions in a forum, or for writing posts in a blog like this.

In fact, sometimes you're being paid (in a way) for building that reputation. I love this post: How much will you pay for Matt Cuts?.

I know that many companies explore our online profiles. And I think that as employees we should be concious of our profiles, whether or not we're looking for a new job. But I don't think that is dishonest or unfaithful. Of course I do write this blog and I have a relatevely updated Linkedin profile.

Maybe I've read too much about personal branding. But it seems to me that Internet is starting to balance the relationship between employees and companies.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

What is this?

Starting a blog it’s a difficult task. It’s not nearly as difficult as keeping updating it, of course.

I have started a couple of blogs.

Both are abandoned.

Not a good track.

Will this blog be different? I don’t know if I’ll continue updating this. But I know for sure this blog is different now.

The first difference is that I’m writing it in English. The reason I’m doing it, is because writing in English it’s an exercise for me.

I’m an Spaniard, I live at Spain, and my mother tongue is Spanish.

I can read pretty well in English. But I’m not able to express myself in English, mostly by lack of practice. And I need it.

Therefore, I must practice. And I’d thank you when you point me to something unclear or incorrect.

The second difference is that this not going a specialised blog on a certain topic. This is a blog about me and my thoughts. Probably it isn’t interesting for anybody besides me. But it serves “to scratch my itch”, to verbalize what I think, and better, to do it in English.