Time for Google Headlines!

Post ImageHave you ever used a news aggregator like Google News? My guess is that you have, at least once. While these aggregators drive traffic to newspapers, magazines, and other content websites, they also cause problems with the headlines authors choose for a particular story:

Journalist over the years have assumed they were writing their headlines and articles for two audiences–fickle readers and nitpicking editors. Today, there is a third important arbiter of their work: the software programs that scour the Web, analyzing and ranking online news articles on behalf of Internet search engines like Google, Yahoo and MSN.

“The search engine has to get a straightforward, factual headline, so it can understand it,” Nic Newman, head of product development and technology at BBC News Interactive, said.

Seems that these headline aggregators don’t like wit or humor. Is that a problem with the current crop of readers? Yes. Is it something that presents an opportunity? Again, yes. All you have to do, news media people, is ask for it:

“Google, oh great one…with your vast resources and large repositories of data, surely you can present to us an algorithm that is able to craft funny headlines, complete with all the inside jokes your spiders can discover…bestow upon us mere mortals such an algorithm, and call it Google Headlines (beta, naturally)…and we shall be forever grateful.”

They can’t deny a request like that! Or can they?

Read: CNET News.com

How many podcasters are there?

Post ImageI read some of the comments and other blog posts that referenced the Forrester report I linked to yesterday, and it seems that most people think the numbers are far too low. John Furrier has an excellent roundup of estimates, and Todd Cochrane said he thinks the unique listener number of 700,000 is actually “about 10 times that many.”

After I thought about things a little more, I realized that the problem is not whether they are too high or too low, but rather that we have no idea how many people are creating podcasts. Seems to me you need to have creators actually producing something before you can have listeners! I know there’s more to it than that, but a good idea of the number of people who are creating podcasts might help in trying to establish a credible number for how many listeners there are.

So far I haven’t really been able to find any such data. Our own estimates here at Paramagnus peg the number of creators at somewhere around 30,000 worldwide, but that is an extremely “back of the envelope” guess, and I would not be surprised to find it is wrong. Does anyone have reliable data on this sort of thing? Also, we haven’t yet bought the Forrester report – does it contain information on podcast creation, or just the listener side of things?

Da Vinci Code Lawsuit Conspiracy Theory?

Post ImageAs you may have heard at some point in the last few weeks, “The Da Vinci Code” author Dan Brown was sued by fellow authors Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, who wrote “Holy Blood, Holy Grail”. The two asserted that Brown had violated copyright by taking elements from their book and using it in his own. The verdict was handed down today:

“The Da Vinci Code” author Dan Brown and his publishing house were cleared of copyright infringement in a British court Friday, with the judge finding the lawsuit based on a contrived and “selective number of facts and ideas.”

“It would be quite wrong if fictional writers were to have their writings pored over in the way DVC (`Da Vinci Code’) has been pored over in this case by authors of pretend historical books to make an allegation of infringement of copyright,” Judge Peter Smith said in his 71-page ruling.

The result should not surprise anyone, and this is where the idea for a conspiracy theory comes from. Let’s review a few facts:

  • “The Da Vinci Code” is fiction, while “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” is nonfiction. Does it make any sense for a work of fiction to be accused of copyrighting a work of supposed fact? Brown’s book is probably similar to hundreds of books and documents, because he uses a real idea as the basis for his fictional story. Whether or not Brown did any research or not, the idea that works of fiction could be sued for using real-world ideas is absurd.
  • “The Da Vinci Code” hardcover edition is published by Doubleday, which is a division of Random House. The paperback is published under Anchor, which is an imprint of Knopf, which is also a division of Random House. “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” hardcover is published by Delacorte, and the paperback by Dell, both of which are also divisions of Random House.
  • According to an article at BusinessWeek, Baigent and Leigh spent “two years on the lawsuit and nearly $3.5 million, between their own legal expenses, and Random House’s fees.” Something tells me they don’t have that kind of money, so maybe Random House has got their back?
  • Sales of “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” have greatly benefited from the trial, as explained in this CBS News article: “Amazon.com reported a 3,500 percent increase in sales right after the trial began…”
  • Giles Elliott of Bookseller Magazine was quoted recently as saying, “The trial means both books are getting worldwide attention and sales increases in the UK have been dramatic.” He says sales of “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” increased 745% in the UK alone in the first week of the trial.

And it should come as no surprise that “The Da Vinci Code” has dominated bestseller lists for the last two or three years. As you can see, there is lots of evidence to suggest that Random House had something to do with it, as the lawsuit was a win-win for them. And I’m certainly not the first person to suggest this, I just wanted to collect some of the ideas into one place.

So what do you think, is Random House behind the lawsuit?

Podcasting Research from Forrester

Post ImageNo disrespect to Peter Chen or the Diffusion Group or anyone else that has done podcasting research thus far, but I was pleased to see a research report from Forrester. Finally something from a widely respected and referenced research group. Also refreshing is the fact that the report doesn’t make podcasting out to be an amazingly fast growing technology (though it is growing pretty quickly and will probably grow faster over the next couple years). In the new report, titled “Podcasting Hits The Charts“, Forrester shows that only 1% of North American households regularly download and listen to podcasts:

Podcasting will get easier and the content will get better, but it will all take time.

So should companies be putting podcasting on the backburner? Hardly. Content that already exists – such as earning calls, training updates, and executive presentations are all excellent fodder for podcasts. Think of us poor analysts who must listen to streamed quarterly calls while chained to our laptops! My caution is that companies shouldn’t be dashing out to create expensive original content for a small audience – unless they gain value from being seen as innovative.

That first sentence is incredibly important, I think. Podcasting still isn’t easy enough for most people! And yes, these things take time, but hopefully we can help solve that problem in a couple months. The goal of our podcasting solution is to first of all make it easy.

The second bit of stuff I quoted there is important too. We’re doing a lot of our own research on the business sector of podcasting right now, and we really agree – there’s a huge market. Podcasting is an excellent way to solve some communication problems that have always existed.

Read: Charlene Li

NHL's low tech screws Oilers

Post ImageThe Edmonton Oilers just lost the game tonight to Minnesota in the shootout. We should have won though, as we scored a goal in the second period that was reviewed by the local goal judge who said it was no goal. After reviewing the overhead camera angle, any moron could see it was a goal, the puck crossed the line. Apparently the goal judge in Minnesota didn’t wait for Toronto to review the goal like he was supposed to, and it cost us a very valuable point in the race to make the playoffs. Completely unacceptable. All the league did was apologize.

I have the solution though. Since the league apparently cannot employ anyone who can view a simple goddamn television screen, let’s get rid of the video and opportunity for human errors. This low tech is costing teams valuable points. Let’s put little sensors, RFID or something, in each puck and on every net. The sensors would automatically detect when a puck crosses the line. This would also allow us to get rid of the red light people, no need for them when the sensors can do the work. I am sure there would be a few errors, but with some testing and tweaking, I am confident it would be MUCH lower than the error rate with humans involved. How much could it possibly cost? A few cents per puck? Almost nothing.

The current system is clearly not working. The only other option would be to have EVERY review go to the main office in Toronto, to get rid of all local video reviewing. I hope the goal judge in Minnesota is fired. Let’s make sure it doesn’t happen again. This is the year 2006, let’s get with the times NHL! Spend some money to go high tech.

Breakfast with Indira

If you’re a student at the University of Alberta and you’ve been itching to share something with the woman in charge, you may be in luck! University of Alberta President Indira Samarasekera is inviting all students to a special breakfast event:

I’m writing you today with an invitation. I am planning a Breakfast Roundtable meeting just for students on Tuesday, April 18th from 7:30-8:30 a.m. in the Saskatchewan Room of the Faculty Club. Please come, if you are able. Over a continental breakfast, we can discuss some of the issues and challenges you face, and I can hear your bright and creative ideas for enriching the student experience.

Please RSVP by e-mail to jackie.wright@ualberta.ca or by phone at 492-1525.

I wonder how many students will actually end up attending this event. I am tempted to go simply to suggest that she not ever have a roundtable like this so early in the morning ever again! I mean, 7:30 AM? I might as well not go to sleep the night before if I am going to attend! On second thought, that’s probably why it is so early, so that there are fewer students willing to get up and go.

Read: UAlberta

Raising Money for Tech in Alberta

Post ImageAn incredible number of tech startups have been created in the last year or so, as evidenced by the existence of blogs like TechCrunch and The List to track them all. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, some people are starting to get turned off. Caterina Fake, co-founder of Flickr, recently suggested that it’s a bad time to start a company. She outlined six reasons:

  1. Everybody else is starting a company.
  2. Your competition just got funded too.
  3. Talent is scarce again.
  4. You can’t operate in obscurity anymore.
  5. Web 2.0 isn’t all that.
  6. There’s too much going on.

With the exception of number five, I have to respectfully disagree. And judging by the comments she received on that post, many others do as well. More and more companies are being launched every day, and while not all of them will succeed, some will.

The vast majority of these companies are located in Silicon Valley, or at the very least, in the United States. For a while it seemed that Canada was missing out on this time of growth in the tech sector, but thanks to conferences like Mesh and the odd VC deal, that perception is starting to change. We still have a long way to go though, before Mark Evans will be satisfied:

What I want to know is when is Canada’s Web 2.0 party going to start? When can I start writing about super-cool start-ups strutting around with a multi-million dollar VC deals? When do I get to attend parties with an open bar, a great band and a nice “loot bag” when you finally decide to leave?

I have been wondering the same thing, especially given the fact that I have been creating a “cool startup” here in Canada. Through VenturePrize, Wes Nicol, and all of the people and organizations we have met along the way, I have learned a lot about investment and raising money, both here in Alberta and elsewhere.

If you can raise money for a tech venture in Alberta, you can raise it anywhere.

The main thing I have learned about where to raise money is that in Alberta, raising money for a technology based venture is next to impossible. Alberta sees something like 3% of all tech funding done in Canada, which doesn’t jive with our incredible economy. The problem is that the Alberta economy is really a one-trick pony – we’re almost entirely dependent on oil and gas (and real estate which becomes valuable because of the oil and gas). And with generous tax and royalty programs like the Innovative Energy Technologies Program and the Generic Oil Sands Royalty Regime (more on these here), why would an investor put money into anything but oil? They can get a significant portion of their investment back through these and other royalty programs. I have been told that in some cases an investor can get almost half of what they invest back in credit!

One advisor I spoke with suggested that the way our provincial economy is setup is really “punitive” for technology based firms. It’s bad news for the future of our province too, as oil and gas are simply not sustainable over the long haul.

This web page appears to have been written in 1996, and yet the three issues identified at the very top still affect technology commercialization in Alberta (not to say that nothing has been accomplished in the last decade):

  1. The shortage of financing for SMEs, primarily for seed or early stage companies with a capital requirement of less than $500,000.
  2. The lack of financing options related to commercialization and early growth situations, where public offerings or other forms of institutional financing may not be appropriate.
  3. The lack in Alberta, relative to other jurisdictions, of tax related incentives, to stimulate investment in the technology sector.

They match up with everything I have learned thus far anyway. More recent publications seem to confirm things as well, such as Ernst & Young’s Alberta Technology Report from 2004:

“Limited funding is an issue that needs addressing,” says Ian Robinson, who as team leader of Ernst & Young’s Technology, Communications and Entertainment group heads up the report. “Locally based angel investors are improving the picture-in 2003 we saw a quarter of companies supported by angels, an increase from 17% the previous year. But few Alberta companies are receiving support from venture capitalists, and small companies-the majority of Alberta’s technology sector-are not able to access funding from these sources. Not surprisingly, perhaps, 38% of companies suggest a willingness to leave Alberta, in part to gain better access to capital,” he says.

So what can you do to raise money for a tech venture in Alberta? Turns out there are still a few options, one of which is of course to simply look elsewhere! In addition to personal or family and friends capital, debt funding, and the other traditional methods of raising money, here are some of the programs available in Alberta:

  • Alberta Deal Generator
    “Alberta Deal Generator (ADG) has established the largest network of accredited investors in Canada who are actively pursuing opportunities in Alberta’s early and growth-stage companies. We work to facilitate investment in high-growth Alberta technology companies.”
  • VenturePrize
    Having gone through the competition, I can confirm that it is a reasonable way to attract investment. At the very least you will likely be introduced to some of the individuals and groups in Alberta that might be interested in investing.
  • Scientific Research and Experimental Development Program
    “The federal government provides income tax incentives to Canadian taxpayers that conduct scientific research and experimental development (SR&ED) in Canada. The program encourages industry, including small business and start-up firms, to develop technologically advanced products and processes in Canada.”
  • Industrial Research Assistance Program
    We have consulted with IRAP here in Edmonton, and it turned out that we just weren’t at the right stage for funding (though they have helped us in other ways). If you’re getting started with a technology based company, make sure you talk to IRAP early so you can plan to use their services and funding.
  • Tech Focused VC Firms
    Organizations like Venture Alberta and SpringBank TechVentures are focused on technology based firms, though I have no idea how successful they have been.
  • Venture Forums
    There are lots of forums that are open to any company in Canada, no matter where you are located, such as the Canadian Venture Forum. There are some local ones too, like the Keiretsu Forum for Calgary and Edmonton.

Hopefully that gives you a good overview of the funding situation for technology companies here in Alberta. There is lots of room for improvement, and until things do improve, I would not be surprised if we end up losing some good technology firms to other locations.

That said, I guess I should point out that starting a company in Alberta is not all bad. There are many advantages to being here, such as excellent access to labor, reasonably good tax rates, and very little threat of natural disasters (such as flooding destroying your data center or something).

In terms of funding though, if your venture is oil and gas related, Alberta is the place to be. If instead your venture is technology based, you might be better off elsewhere unfortunately.

Windows on a Mac arrives!

Post ImageOn Sunday I referenced a post at Engadget that suggested the Mac would soon have the ability to run Microsoft’s Windows operating system. Well today Apple released software called “Boot Camp” that allows Mac owners to do just that:

The software, which will be included in Mac OS X 10.5, called Leopard, is available for download now on Apple’s Web site. Apple will also preview Boot Camp in August at its Worldwide Developer Conference, the company said.

“Apple has no desire or plan to sell or support Windows, but many customers have expressed their interest to run Windows on Apple’s superior hardware, now that we use Intel processors. We think Boot Camp makes the Mac even more appealing to Windows users considering making the switch,” Philip Schiller, Apple’s senior vice president of worldwide product marketing, said in a statement.

Apparently the software only works with Windows XP for now, and there are no plans to support Windows Vista (yet). First they switch to Intel processors, now this. Are OS X’s days numbered? Is Apple going to take my advice and become just a hardware company? The argument is becoming easier and easier to make!

Read: CNET News.com

1-2-3-4-5-6, Never Again?

Post ImageAs you may have heard from friends, or on the news, or maybe you figured it out for yourself, the current time is unique in human history. At 01:02:03 AM, or 123 seconds after 1 AM, on April 4th, 2006 or 04/05/06, the time and date will read 1-2-3-4-5-6. And as New York Times columnist David Pogue and many other people have pointed out, this will never happen again. Well, maybe once more as Wired News explains:

In Europe, which renders the date before the month, this singular moment will occur next month, at 123 seconds past 1 a.m. on 4 May. And after that, it most definitely will never occur again.

Barring someone or something taking over the world and resetting our calendars to before this very moment, it will never happen again. Interesting bit of information, no?

Read: Wired News

Net Neutrality

Post ImageI haven’t said much about so-called “network neutrality” yet, but I do think it is a very important issue. I don’t pretend to know all about it, but I have read enough to form some opinions. First off, here’s how the term is defined at Wikipedia:

Network neutrality is a proposed principle of network regulation. It asserts that, in order to promote innovation, network service providers such as telephone and cable internet companies should not be permitted to dictate how those networks are used (ie. not permitted to ban certain types of programs, or to ban certain types of devices connecting to the network).

Currently, this is a big political issue in the United States, but I am not sure if it has received much attention elsewhere. A draft bill scheduled to be voted on tomorrow will be revised to ensure that the FCC has tools at its disposal to address violations. This is the main idea behind the bill, at least as I understand it:

The draft bill says broadband providers must provide connectivity speeds “at least equal to the speed and quality of service” that the operator offers for its own content or that of its affiliates, and “make available the same bandwidth” to everyone.

I encourage you to read the article linked to above (at CNET News.com) as it contains some background information in addition to the current happenings.

I was a little torn between whether or not network neutrality is a good idea or not. My gut feeling and initial reactions were that net neutrality is vital for the future of the Internet, and it must be protected. As I thought about it a little more, I turned to economics, and thus my secondary thoughts were that the market should decide how these services are charged for and offered. Upon still further consideration, I feel that net neutrality is important and we should all ensure the Internet remains neutral.

There are too many “ifs” associated with a network that might become tiered or fragmented in some way – who knows what the providers might do. The last thing I would want as a business consumer is to have different Internet access, whether in performance or throughput or bandwidth, than a larger company simply because the Internet providers can squeeze large sums of money out of them.

One of the great things about the Internet is that it is open and available to everyone (I realize there are people who cannot yet afford access, or areas for which access is unavailable, but as a blanket statement, the Internet is pretty open). I think it’s important we keep it that way, so I hope laws concerning network neutrality are ratified in the United States, and eventually, elsewhere.