Tag: business

Bungie splits from Microsoft

bungie

Today Microsoft announced that Bungie Studios, the developer of the Halo games, will once again become an independent company. Microsoft will still own part of Bungie, and will continue the long-standing publishing agreement between the two for games developed by Bungie. From the Inside Bungie blog:

Bungie has long been built on creativity, originality and the freedom to pursue ideas. Microsoft agreed, and rather than stifle our imagination, they decided it was in both our best interests to unleash it. We’ll continue to make Xbox 360 games, and we’ll continue to make amazing games for MGS. In that regard, nothing has changed.

It sounds like everyone is happy with this arrangement. Both MS and Bungie seem pretty adamant that nothing will change, and I don’t see much reason to doubt them. I would assume that Microsoft will make slightly less money on future Bungie games, but I think they can live with that as long as the studio continues to pump out winners.

This quote from the Bungie press release made me laugh:

“Working with Microsoft was great for us, it allowed us to grow as a team and make the ambitious, blockbuster games we all wanted to work on. And they will continue to be a great partner. But Bungie is like a shark.  We have to keep moving to survive. We have to continually test ourselves, or we might as well be dolphins. Or manatees,” said Jason Jones, Bungie founder and partner.

Heh, well we can’t have them turning into manatees!

Mary Jo Foley has a good post up with five reasons why the split is a smart move for Microsoft. Her fifth point is the most important, I think:

5. Quasi-independent subsidiaries come up with more interesting ideas. As it has done with Xbox and Zune, Microsoft no longer believes innovation only happens when a unit is physically and psychically locked inside the Redmond headquarters.

I hope that shift in thinking really is happening inside Microsoft. For instance, I’m sure the new Vancouver dev centre will do some great things if they aren’t forced to go through Redmond for everything.

For lots more on this story, check out Techmeme.

Read: Microsoft

Radiohead shows us the music industry of the future

radiohead

What if you could set the price for an album you wanted to purchase? Wouldn’t it be great to have the ability to spend $5 to check out a new band, and $25 for a band you absolutely love? It might happen sooner than you think, with Radiohead leading the charge:

As expected, Radiohead has gone an unusual route for distribution of its seventh studio album, “In Rainbows.” The set will be available for digital download from the band’s Web site beginning Oct. 10, but with a twist — fans can name their own price for the purchase. “It’s up to you,” reads a disclaimer on the checkout screen.

Make no mistake, this is a big deal. Radiohead is obviously a very successful band with a huge fan base which allows them to experiment like this, but dammit someone has to. It might as well be Radiohead. I’ve written about making the music free before, and I’m glad to now see some action.

Techdirt notes that there is more to the story, in that Radiohead is also offering a “discbox” for $80 USD that contains the album on CD and vinyl, along with an additional CD with seven tracks, plus photos, artwork, and lyrics.

In this case, Radiohead isn’t really selling the “music.” After all, you can get that for free. They’re selling the full collection of stuff that comes with the music. Funny how it’s the musicians, and not the record labels, who seem to realize that adding value and getting people to pay for it is a business model that beats suing fans.

This is really cool. Music fans everywhere should be extremely happy about this giant leap forward! There’s more great stuff on the story at Boing Boing.

Read: Billboard

Finally a reason to like Stelmach, perhaps

Post ImageI’m not a huge fan of Alberta’s current premier, Ed Stelmach. Just like Chris, I miss Ralph Klein. There was no guessing with Klein, and certainly no extended periods of silence. You knew exactly what to expect, and he never disappointed. With Stelmach on the other hand, there’s just dead air.

In the past I’ve written that raising money for tech in Alberta sucks. I would have to say that it still sucks. But perhaps Stelmach will make it suck less. That’s what the Journal would have you believe anyway:

After years of empty rhetoric and inaction under Klein, a sea change may be underway. Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach and Advanced Education and Technology Minister Doug Horner seem intent on finally addressing some of the issues that have hindered development of the province’s tech sector.

The two established a task force back in March to examine tech commercialization in our province, and the report finally came on Friday. And before I say anything else, kudos to Horner and his department for making the report available online (pdf).

Among the findings:

  • Creation of a government-backed, $100 million Alberta Enterprise Fund with $200 million in projected matching investments from the private sector
  • Creation of a 25% investor tax credit
  • Creation of an Alberta-specific SR&ED tax credit to match the federal program

Other things include additional facilities and tech centres, and improved access to intellectual property. The Journal article quickly points out that “the recommendations outlined above are hardly revolutionary.” You can say that again! We need to implement each one of those things just to get on par with provinces like Ontario and B.C.

The thing to keep in mind is that a report is nothing more than words on paper. Stelmach and his government still need to act on the report’s findings before anything will change. Still, this is a lot further than Alberta has ever gotten in the past. Perhaps one day I’ll be able to write that raising money for tech in Alberta rocks.

Read: Edmonton Journal

Energy is the new dot-com even in Alberta

Ten years ago it was fashionable to say that you worked for a dot-com company, or better yet, that you had started a dot-com. These days, it seems dot-com has been replaced by anything related to the environment, especially clean energy. Perhaps the title of my post should read especially in Alberta, as it should be no surprise that energy is a big deal here. Clean energy (read: not oil) is still somewhat unique though.

A number of investors who made lots of money during the dot-com boom are now turning their attention to the environment. Vinod Khosla is perhaps the most high-profile of these investors, but he’s certainly not the only one. Here is a VentureBeat article on Khosla specifically, and a great Economist article on the trend in general.

Shane and Evan Chrapko are two Alberta boys that have followed the now predictable path from dot-com millionaires to clean energy entrepreneurs:

The one-time Brosseau farmboys are co-CEOs at Highmark Renewables, a new biofuels company based near Vegreville.

They were impressed with the technology developed by feedlot owner Bern Kotelko and the Alberta Research Council to convert cattle manure and other waste to a biogas that produces electricity, ethanol or plain heat, Evan says.

The dot-com they founded was called DocSpace, and they sold it for a cool $568 million USD, which gave them about $75 million each. If you do a search for DocSpace now, you won’t find much, and that’s hardly surprising. I attended a talk that one of the brothers gave at the University of Alberta a few years ago, and I simply could not fathom how they sold their company for that much money. They definitely made the most of the boom.

It’ll be interesting to see how successful Highmark becomes. The brothers took on another company back in 2003 called Time Industrial, and had this to say at the time (careful – Word document):

“But Time Industrial has a very real possibility of being 10 times or even 100 times bigger than DocSpace. It’s a second once-in-a-lifetime chance. You don’t get too many of those.”

That company went public in 2005, for far less than DocSpace, and the brothers have now moved on to Highmark (to be fair the company was bankrupt when they took it over). They have (thankfully) toned down the hyperbole, and they’re operating in a really hot sector, so maybe they’ll find success once again.

The Chrapko brothers no doubt got this article in the Journal because of their success in the past, but I’d be willing to bet there are dozens of similar stories to be told here in Alberta. Perhaps not with numbers as large as DocSpace, but certainly entrepreneurs transitioning from high-tech to energy.

Read: Edmonton Journal (Archive)

Happy 25th Birthday Diet Coke!

Twenty five years ago today, Diet Coke was introduced to the world at Radio City Music Hall in New York. Just four years later, it became the #1 low-calorie sparkling beverage in the world, a title it continues to hold to this day.

I am definitely a fan of Diet Coke. I have been drinking mostly Coke Zero lately, but I enjoy a Diet Coke every now and then. It has a very distinct taste that I think is fairly divisive: either you like it or you don’t.

Diet Coke is about more than beverages however:

“Since its launch, Diet Coke has been synonymous with stylish sophistication,” said Katie Bayne, chief marketing officer, Coca-Cola North America. “Through the years, Diet Coke marketing and advertising has reflected and embraced pop culture, and the brand has become a global icon that embodies great cola taste with an undeniable sense of style.”

Ah yes, pop culture. Numerous celebrities have endorsed Diet Coke, and the drink itself has become something of a celebrity recently – along with its good friend Mentos, that is. Oh by the way, if you like the image I included in this post (and who doesn’t) then check out the video.

If you have some time to waste, check out the Wikipedia entry for Diet Coke. I had no idea there were so many sub-brands, for instance. Lots of interesting information.

I still haven’t seen Diet Coke Plus anywhere, but I’d like to give it a try. Hopefully it shows up in Edmonton soon. Oh and Cherry Coke Zero too.

Happy Birthday Diet Coke!

Read: Coca-Cola

What to do when technology fails?

Post ImageLike most people, I rely on technology all day, every day. I consider myself a fairly heavy text messaging user (I send almost 1000 texts a month) and I always have Outlook and Opera open. Oh and instant messaging, though I find myself using that less. Usually things work great, but sometimes things go wrong.

Take today for example. Last night after the movie my text messaging appeared to stop working. I couldn’t send or receive. This is a big deal for me but since it was almost 2 AM, I figured I’d see if it sorted itself out over night. Turns out it did for the most part, but service today has been slow and sporadic. It still isn’t working correctly.

Also last night, Twitter had some unscheduled downtime. Not the end of the world, but I definitely noticed it. And for some reason, Twitter doesn’t recognize symbols (like @ or $) from my phone properly. No one has responded to my tech support request.

Then there was Facebook. Around 8:30 this morning I tried to get into Facebook – no dice. I don’t ever recall having issues with Facebook, but for whatever reason it was down earlier today. I am guessing it was a small glitch of some sort, and it probably didn’t affect everyone.

What’s common between the three? They are consumer facing applications. They are free (well text messaging isn’t, but it’s dirt cheap at $10/mo for unlimited). Generally speaking, consumer facing + free means that support is either not very good or non-existent. Furthermore, there’s not really any agreement on the part of the service to ensure that it performs well and is reliable.

I suppose that’s fine for unimportant communication, but what happens when we use them for something more critical? It used to be that there was a clear distinction between corporate and consumer – lately I think the line is fading. I use text messaging, Twitter, and Facebook for both purposes.

I don’t know how, but eventually this problem is going to need to be addressed.

UPDATE: Apparently the Facebook issue this morning was related to power.

Telus and Bell to merge?

Post ImageI didn’t see this one coming, but apparently Telus is interested in acquiring Bell parent BCE Inc. Such a move would create a truly national telecommunications company here in Canada, but I am not sure that’s such a good thing. Telus CEO Darren Entwistle seems convinced though:

“This acquisition will create a strong, integrated competitor that would generate continued expansion and growth in the years ahead,” CEO Darren Entwistle said in a media conference call.

“This particular acquisition makes enormous sense for our country. This move will create a truly national provider with the size to stand along side any telecom company in the world.”

Fellow blogger Mark Evans speculates on the deal and wonders if Rogers and Shaw would cozy up in response.

Who knew the Canadian telecommunications industry could be so interesting?

Read: TheStar.com

Guy Kawasaki and Truemors

Post ImageEver hear the name Guy Kawasaki before? If you’re at all involved in the tech or marketing industries, chances are you have. He’s a pretty famous guy, credited with “bringing the concept of evangelism to the high-tech business.” He made his name at Apple, where he was responsible for marketing of the Macintosh.

Lately Guy has been blogging, and launching a new company called Truemors. Here’s a description from the website:

The purpose of Truemors is to democratize information. We made it so that people don’t need to be a journalist or even run a web site or blog to “tell the world.” Think of Truemors as a friction-free news site.

Reaction to the site has run the gamut from extremely positive to extremely negative. That doesn’t seem to bug Guy though, who recently posted “By the Numbers: How I built a Web 2.0, User-Generated Content, Citizen Journalism, Long-Tail, Social Media Site for $12,107.09.” After listing a bunch of facts and figures, he says:

One thing is for sure: no entrepreneur can tell me that he needs $1 million, four programmers, and six months to launch this kind of company.

He then ends with:

I end with a truism (as opposed to truemor): There’s only one way to find out if your idea will succeed, and that’s to try it, so go for it.

Lots of people have written about his post already, but I just have to add my two cents.

He’s absolutely right with that last point – if you have an idea, you have to go for it! There’s no other way to determine if it will fail or succeed. And you’ll learn a lot in the process too, as Guy pointed out.

The idea that you can launch a company for $12,000 is bullshit though. Guy may only have spent around $12K on Truemors, but that doesn’t take into account the value his name brought to the whole project. He knows it too:

Many bloggers got bent out of shape: “The only reason Truemors is getting so much coverage is that it’s Guy’s site.” To which my response is, “You have a firm grasp of the obvious.”

It’s obvious, but it is worth mentioning. TechCrunch wrote about the site three times, and that was before it even launched! Even ignoring the rest of the press Truemors got, those three posts are invaluable, and Guy can thank his name for them.

Guy makes it sound like it’s now dead easy to build and launch a company for hardly any money. From my own experience, and from everyone I have had the opportunity to learn from over the last few years, that’s just not typical.

I’m not saying you need $1 million, and I don’t want to discount the fact that Guy earned the value his name carries over 24 years of hard work, but his experience is clearly unique. I find it hard to believe that most entrepreneurs will have a similar experience. I sure haven’t! I’d love to have over 260,000 page views at Podcast Spot in a single day.

Anyway, I’ll stop now. If you’d like to read an interesting counterpoint to Guy’s post, check out Valleywag.

(This is a total aside, but I think my friend Alex looks a lot like Guy. He’s an evangelist too!)

Read: Guy Kawasaki

Google Acquires FeedBurner

Post ImageLots of talk today about Google’s $100 million acquisition of RSS management company FeedBurner. Congrats to the FeedBurner guys! I do have to admit though that I am bit sad that FeedBurner is now a Google property. I guess they were too valuable to remain independent forever though. From TechCrunch:

Feedburner is in the closing stages of being acquired by Google for around $100 million. The deal is all cash and mostly upfront, according to our source, although the founders will be locked in for a couple of years.

The information we have is that the deal is now under a binding term sheet and will close in 2-3 weeks, and there is nothing that can really derail it at this point.

Must be pretty sweet to get an all cash deal. TechCrunch confirmed it today, but it looks like Valleywag had the story right last week.

Not everyone is happy about the deal. Todd Cochrane does a good job of spreading FUD in his post. Todd, you need to worry less!

Read: TechCrunch

We need someone to complain to!

Post ImageTwitter is in the news again (at least in the blogosphere). Yesterday Jason Calacanis posted that he’d be willing to pay for a premium account on Twitter. Dave Winer then chimed in and said that it could be accomplished without Twitter’s help at all. And then Boris Mann posted a bit of a rant saying that Twitter is Jabber. Boris says:

My only explanation for the Twitter craze is that North Americans are still enamored of anything that can do the tiniest bit of mobile integration.

No Boris, there’s a very simple reason that Twitter is all the rage right now and Jabber is not (and never has been except among geeks) – we need someone to complain to. XMPP is great, but when something goes wrong, what do you do? Who do you turn to? At least when Twitter breaks I know who to contact.

It’s a fundamental problem with almost all open source projects – accountability is lost. This is especially true when you want to use the project for something serious, like Jason does. That’s why companies like Red Hat, IBM and Bryght are the ones we turn to for integrating open source technology. If something goes awry, I know there’s someone out there who will take my money to get it fixed.

Twitter doesn’t have that many users. It doesn’t have really impressive technology, as Boris has pointed out. Twitter is where it is today because it was created by and continues to be run by a corporate entity.

Read: Boris Mann