Month: November 2007

Microsoft and Yahoo…again

Post ImageAs the saying goes: where there’s smoke there’s fire. Perhaps that axiom should have a time limit though. I mean, there can only be so much smoke before you have to wonder…is there one fire? Multiple fires? Any fire at all? Is that even smoke?!

The reason I bring this up: Microsoft buying Yahoo was in the news again. Still a rumor. How many times are we going to hear this?

"It’s just speculation at this point. But there were rumors this past weekend that Microsoft offered $80 billion for Yahoo. Yahoo was said to have rejected the bid as too low."
– Microsoft Watch, 1/3/2006

"Microsoft has been in talks with Yahoo! about potentially acquiring a major portion of the company, according to a report published Wednesday."
– CNNMoney.com, 5/3/2006

"Microsoft should buy Yahoo! to give its struggling MSN Web unit a much-needed boost, according to a report issued by Merrill Lynch analyst Justin Post."
– TheStreet.com, 6/23/2006

"Microsoft can afford Yahoo! and a combined MSN/Yahoo! would certainly be a stronger competitive player against Google, something that is clearly on Ballmer’s mind right now. That seems the most likely deal to me."
– Fred Wilson, 10/15/2006

"Should Microsoft buy Yahoo? UBS analysts Heather Bellini and Benjamin Schachter raise the question in a report issued this afternoon about the troubles in Microsoft’s online business."
– Barron’s, 3/1/2007

"While Microsoft and Yahoo! have held informal deal talks over the years, sources say the latest approach signals an urgency on Microsoft’s part that has up until now been lacking."
– New York Post, 5/4/2007

"Microsoft Corp.’s plan to buy AQuantive Inc. for $6 billion increases the likelihood that the software maker will also buy Yahoo! Inc."
– Bloomberg, 5/18/2007

"In a TV interview, Microsoft’s Chairman and CEO Steve Ballmer wouldn’t answer whether the company continues to mull buying Yahoo."
– PC World, 8/20/2007

"A Microsoft acquisition of Yahoo would be disastrous for Yahoo…But what such an acquisition would do to Yahoo is irrelevant. If Microsoft comes in with a Murdoch-like offer, Yahoo won’t be able to refuse."
– Henry Blodget, 11/16/2007

There’s certainly been other times that I haven’t listed above (a quick search reveals millions of results). The point is that we’ve heard this rumor many times, and nothing has come of it. Will the next time be any different? I’m thinking no, but who knows.

Acquisitions of this size take time. Maybe the strategy is to have it mentioned multiple times for a few years so that it is less shocking (and thus easier for everyone to swallow and for the Feds to approve) when it actually happens?

Or maybe it’s just such a fascinating combination that it’s hard not to speculate.

Read: Techmeme

Fortune fires up the photocopier for PayPal story

Fortune published an article today about "the hyperintelligent, superconnected pack of serial entrepreneurs" who left PayPal for bigger and better things; a group of individuals they have dubbed "the PayPal mafia". Founded in 1998, PayPal itself is fairly interesting, but the people behind it are downright fascinating!

As I was reading the article, I had the strangest sense of déjà vu. It was like I had read the article already! A quick search revealed that I had, over a year ago, at the New York Times. I just gave it a quick re-read, and it’s really amazing how similar the Fortune article is to the one that appeared in the Times last October.

Here are a couple examples. From the New York Times article:

Since 2002, when dozens of employees left PayPal after it was bought by eBay for $1.5 billion, those workers have gone on to start or join a new generation of Internet companies and other ventures. They have remained a tight-knit group, attending each other’s parties, helping to shape each other’s business plans, backing each other’s companies and recruiting each other for new projects.

Silicon Valley was largely built by networks of people and companies whose interlocking relationships help to spawn new start-ups. But the PayPal alumni have been unusually prolific…

And from the Fortune article:

Most of PayPal’s key employees left eBay, but they stayed in touch. They even have a name for themselves: the PayPal mafia. And the mafiosi have been busy.

During the past five years they’ve been furiously building things – investment firms, philanthropies, solar-power companies, an electric-car maker, a firm that aims to colonize Mars, and of course a slew of Internet companies. It’s amazing how many hot web properties can trace their ancestries to PayPal.

Again, from the New York Times article:

The company was losing millions each month. It was besieged by hackers who used technological trickery to siphon off huge sums from the company’s coffers.

And the Fortune article:

Meanwhile, PayPal losses were multiplying. It battled Russian fraudsters who were filching millions by cribbing credit card numbers.

See what I mean? Both stories follow the exact same formula, and touch on the exact same points. Of course this happens all the time in the media, but over a year apart? Seems kind of strange to me. Granted, the Fortune article does go into a bit more detail, but still.

It’s an interesting story, even if it has been written twice now. I was going to pull out the list of companies that former PayPalers have been involved with, but it has already been done at Wikipedia, of course. Facebook and YouTube are the heavy-hitters.

Both articles do a good job of detailing the tightly-knit group of individuals behind PayPal and many other startups. The topic I wish they’d follow-up on? How to break into that group.

Read: Fortune

Notes for 11/12/2007

Here are my weekly notes, holiday Monday edition:

Sucks to be a PDA

Post ImageAccording to the most recent figures from IDC, worldwide shipments of PDAs fell 43.5% from 2006 to 2007. That’s the 15th consecutive quarter of decreasing sales for the industry, according to ars technica. It’s important to note that these figures refer to PDAs, and not to smartphones (which you could argue do roughly the same thing). Ars puts the data into perspective:

In the third quarter, IDC says that 728,000 PDA shipments were made globally. To put this in perspective, consider that Apple sold one million iPhones in only half a quarter, and RIM saw sales of more than three million BlackBerrys for the quarter ended September 1.

It seems as though I was only half right when I wrote this post. Turns out smartphones are more popular than ever, but mobile devices like the Pocket PC are indeed disappearing (save for a few niche markets).

I still think that pocket computing in its current form doesn’t have much of a future. I’m more convinced than ever (thanks to virtualization and other advances) that carrying your entire computer around in your pocket on a memory stick is going to become feasible and desirable. No need for a "pocket" version of everything or synchronization with a mobile device when that arrives.

Of course, it does make sense for some mobile devices to exist. Portable media players come to mind, as do the cell phone + calendar combination devices. I’d also like to see a "OneNote" device…something to replace the pen and paper for quick note taking.

Read: ars technica

Windows Live Writer 2008

Post Image I just downloaded and installed the latest update to my blogging tool of choice – Windows Live Writer. This version is the first to drop the "beta" moniker, but I don’t like the new name. I was kind of hoping that Microsoft could avoid the "year names" with their Windows Live products.

MSN Messenger and Windows Live Messenger have never used the year in release names, and I hope it stays that way. If we can’t have more creative names, then I’m happy with a version number. A version number conveys the same information as a year (which release is newer) while at the same time not sounding out of date the following year (when it may still be the latest release).

I know some people don’t like it, but Apple’s use of codenames in the actual marketing for OS X is pretty cool. Anil’s point is good – the name "Leopard" should appear in the actual product itself. Still, "Leopard" is much more creative than "10.5". Of course, version numbers shouldn’t disappear, as they do serve a useful function.

Separating the product name from the release name could do wonders for Microsoft’s notoriously horrible product/release names. The product is "Windows Live Writer" or "Office", the release could be so much more than "2008" or "2007". They’ve started to do this with consumer editions of Windows it seems, with XP followed by Vista. Why not for other products?

Read: Writer Zone

Why are blank CDs so expensive?

Post ImageI never thought I’d write something like this, but blank CDs are freaking expensive! It wasn’t long ago that I could care less about turning a CD into a coaster, but now I do care. I don’t know what changed, but for some reason CDs have become incredibly expensive relative to DVDs.

Here is the current pricing at Futureshop.ca for a brand I quite like:

More than double the price! And it’s not just Maxell either:

It’s ridiculous! Heck, you can get a 50 pack of Memorex Dual Layer DVD+Rs for only $59.99. I suppose I should point out that both the Maxell DVD and Memorex Dual Layer DVD prices are after an instant rebate, but don’t be fooled – that spindle of 100 Maxell DVDs has been $32.99 for at least six months. That’s for both DVD-R and DVD+R. This isn’t specific to Futureshop either…I’ve noticed the same trend at all computer stores here in Edmonton.

I’m obviously not an expert on this topic, but aren’t CDs and DVDs made from pretty much the same stuff? The main difference between the two seems to be the wavelength of the laser that is used, not anything with the physical discs themselves. Even if there are some differences, surely CDs shouldn’t be twice as expensive as DVDs to manufacture!

You might be thinking that this isn’t a big deal – DVDs store more data anyway. That’s entirely accurate. In fact, I really only use CDs for two reasons: burning audio CDs for my car, and burning CD images. Still, the price shocks me.

Perhaps the high price of CDs is just a reflection of marketplace pressures? These days, almost everyone has a portable media player (like an iPod) and almost all new cars have an auxiliary jack (including mine), so there’s less of a need to burn audio CDs. And on the data side, DVDs are just far more useful due to their larger capacity. All new computers come with a drive that will burn both DVDs and CDs, so it’s easy to pick DVDs over CDs.

Are CDs dead?

I don’t think CDs will be disappearing any time soon, but I do think they are on the way out. Newer technologies like DVD, HD-DVD, and Blu-ray have made the CD seem ancient and have certainly reduced its usefulness. And I think it’s safe to say that the CD will be the last physical media form the music industry will ever sell. Digital tracks over the web is the way of the future.

So long compact disc…it was nice knowing you!

Get your @live.com address now!

Microsoft opened up registration for their @live.xx domains today! You can head over to the Live.com site to register for your local address (in Canada that would be @live.ca). Of course, if you’re like me, you want an @live.com address too. You can sign up for that one here (click the “Get it free” button).

I can’t imagine how much Microsoft spent on the “live” domains, but they’ve got a ton of them. You can sign up for many more by following the links here, if you’re so inclined. The new “Linked IDs” feature will definitely come in handy now!

I just registered mastermaq@live.com and mastermaq@live.ca and linked them. Wicked!

Also, if you’ve got a Hotmail account that you want to transition to Live.com, check out this page. You’ll have to do a bunch of migration steps, and not everything can be transferred. Personally I like the @hotmail.com address, so I’m keeping mine.

There you go, enjoy!

Read: LiveSide

Notes for 11/5/2007

Obviously, I didn’t get around to posting my weekly notes yesterday. I got home pretty late and was exhausted after a long day of office moving! Yes, we’re finally getting stuff out of the office. Yesterday we took apart all the furniture and loaded up the van we rented from Budget. Tonight we finally got everything put away in storage. All that remains is the stuff that used to be in the desks and on the shelves, which is quite a lot. The office looks like a disaster area right now! Hopefully it won’t take us long to clean up.

In The Crosshairs: Facebook

Post ImageThe tech industry really amazes me sometimes. Everyone knows that it moves fast, but I don’t think the average person realizes just how fast. The status quo can change overnight. I’m guessing Facebook knows this better than anyone or any company right now:

Google may have just come out of nowhere and checkmated Facebook in the social networking power struggle. MySpace and Six Apart will announce that they are joining Google’s OpenSocial initiative.

Here’s the big question – Will Facebook now be forced to join OpenSocial? Google says they are talking to “everyone.” This is a major strategic decision for Facebook, and they may have little choice but to join this coalition.

Essentially what Google is trying to do is make something like Facebook’s Platform available across the entire web. If you build an application for Facebook today, it only runs on Facebook. If you build an application for Google’s OpenSocial, it will run on any site that supports it – and so far, that’s almost every social networking site except Facebook.

Erick Schonfeld is absolutely right – the ball is in Facebook’s court now. They could handle this very well and come out on top, which is what I think they’ll do. My guess is that they will support OpenSocial eventually. Or they could handle it very poorly and screw up everything they’ve got going for them.

OpenSocial has been the hot topic for the last couple days, and there’s a ton of stuff up on TechMeme if you want to read more about it. This post from Dare Obasanjo will definitely make you stop and think, so make sure you read it:

In thinking about the Google OpenSocial Announcement I realized how much some of Google’s recent moves remind me of Microsoft of old [for some undeclared definition of old].

The five reasons Dare suggests all make sense to me. Still not sure what to make of that.

UPDATE: After thinking about this some more, it occurred to me that the headlines streaming across the web today would probably confuse the average Internet user. I mean, the average user probably uses both Google and Facebook in a (mostly) mutually exclusive way. Google is for search, Facebook is for wall posts. A headline like “Google vs. Facebook” would seem somewhat strange to that user. Or am I not giving the average user enough credit?

Read: TechCrunch