Now that Mesh is over, I’ll need to begin reviewing the things I heard discussed, the things I learned, and the different perspectives on things I already knew. Conferences like this one always give me so much to consider – I never leave empty handed or bored.

As I mentioned previously, the conference wasn’t quite what I was expecting. It was far less geeky than I had anticipated. Even the two “15 Minutes of Fame” sessions were not demos, but rather introductions or high level overviews. Things like Ajax or Javascript or Ruby on Rails were rarely mentioned, and even then only in passing. More people had paper notepads and pens than laptops for taking notes (there were still a lot of laptops, don’t get me wrong). All in all, the audience seemed much more “business-like”.

I think this conference was good for me. I got some interesting perspective on “Web 2.0”, and I met some very intriguing people. I also think the conference is good for Canada, we need events like Mesh to remind us of the talent and opportunity that we have – we don’t need to go to Silicon Valley. At the same time, Mesh reminds us of the areas that we could and should be doing much better.

Thanks to Stuart, Mark, and the entire organizing and planning team for putting on a superb conference! I look forward to next year’s Mesh (and yes I think there can be one, even if we no longer talk about “Web 2.0”, because the discussions held over the last two days are still relevant).

The last session of the day that I am attending is with Mike McDerment, Chris Messina, Matt Mullenweg, and Stowe Boyd, who will be discussing whether or not they thing Web 2.0 is changing the software industry. Here are my notes (my comments in italics):

• Matt describes a web service as a web page meant for a computer.
• Mike is confusing web services and web applications maybe? What Mike means is a service like Basecamp, where users pay a monthly fee to use the service.
• Stowe likes the term/phrase, “the freemium model”, where base capabilites are free and you turn on a for fee model after some limit is hit. I like the phrase too, and the business model. It’s a natural way that people get hooked and then like a service so much they’ll pay.
• Matt points out that a nice thing about these services is that you don’t have to worry about security, or upgrades, or any of that sort of thing.
• The significance of consuming apps online instead of in a shrinkwrapped way, is huge, according to Stowe. Products will get much better, much more quickly. It’s like the difference between American Airlines and JetBlue.
• Matt thinks the unsexy name for freemium is shareware, and it’s been around for a while. The difference now is that we have broadband.
• Chris thinks wifi is also a huge change, and that we have laptops everywhere.
• In three years, Stowe thinks the software landscape will look increasingly web-based. People will have connectivity all the time, on increasingly more capable mobile devices.
• What Chris wants to see is interfaces and interactions with software that translates into something real.
• People are the center of the universe, not data, not information. Stowe thinks the buddy list is the most important metaphor for the future. He says RSS aggregators follow the wrong model, we don’t need bits of information coming through a pipe, but instead we want to know what Chris has written lately, for example.
• Good question from the audience about innovation exhaustion, what happens after the 38th signal? How do these web apps become useful for real people?
• Stowe: another trend, small companies.
• If you can make things intuitive, you wont have as many people bug you, says Matt.
• Chis says microformats is an area he’s been doing a lot of work right now.
• Matt says at the end of the day, formats and standards don’t matter. He says they should arise afterward as codifications of market trends. All of the great standards were not written first, but followed an existing market trend.
• Stowe says we don’t need a replacement for Office on the web.
• Stowe thinks apps with the social stuff built in will be the most successful Web 2.0 apps.
• The “social architecture approach”, look at the social stuff during design.

Very interesting session, lots to think about after this one.

This should be an interesting session, all about creating a viable web business. On hand is Malgosia Green, Michael McDerment, Albert Lai and Leila Boujnane. Here are my notes (my comments in italics):

• Leila says it’s not trivial to get someone to pay, its hard to get out of the “free” hell.
• Michael, from FreshBooks, says that they had to change their name (they used to be 2ndSite or something) because the old name had many shortcomings. The name was not memorable, did not describe the business or industry, etc.
• Albert says to make sure you do a trademark search, and trademark your name.
• Albert says to ship early, and ship often. He also thinks that you shouldn’t build desktop software unless you have to.
• Malgosia says not to get attached to your code. Sometimes rewriting is vital. Alex agrees, you can’t be afraid of shifting gears.
• Don’t be afraid to reach out to the community, bloggers will talk about you if they like what they see.
• Enable people to help each other.
• Michael says the support department is the sales department, they don’t really have a separate group for sales.
• Support, development, and marketing are like the holy trinity of online web apps.
• If the application is for something leisure-related, upgrading from a free account to a paid account is’nt as common as something more focused on business.
• Malgosia says to be humble.
• Michael thinks that just as important as knowing what you know, is knowing what you don’t know.

There seems to be one session per conference that I don’t pay an incredible amount of attention to, and this one turned out to be the one. Some interesting ideas, but everything is really applicable only on a per-business basis. What works for one of these panelists isn’t going to work for everyone. That, and there’s more than one way to skin a cat.

I got to this session slightly late, but that’s okay. Jason Fried and Rick Segal are tackling the question of whether or not Web 2.0 companies need venture capital. Jason is, of course, from 37signals, a Web 2.0 company that didn’t take VC. Here are my notes (my comments in italics):

• Jason says everything they do is profitable.
• Rick agrees with Jason, if you don’t need the venture capital, don’t take it. Institutional money changes the dynamics of what you’re doing.
• On the whole, Rick thinks that 37signals is an anomoly. The norm is folks come up with an idea, and then need some cash to get going.
• If you don’t lose your limited partners’ money, they will love you. There’s a myth that you need to make millions and millions, and its probably not true.
• Jason says the answer to “how do you monetize this” is “you charge for it.” If you build tools that people want and like, you can charge for them.
• If you pay for something and you use it, you’ll see the value. There is a disconnect between buyer and user in the enterprise.
• Rick says in general, free sucks. The problem is that we’ve trained people to do free, and getting people to pay for something is a non-trivial task. Rick says generating revenue quickly is important.
• Jason says “we like to emulate drug dealers”, you give people a little bit for free and get them hooked. Most of 37signals’ business is from upgrades.
• Jason says know what you want to do, and build something that you can manage without requiring the headcount to swell. You need to have people on board who share that vision.
• Rick says there are definite opportunities in Canada. However, there is not enough chest pounding that this is a great place to start a company. This company has a wealth of talent, and there is capital.
• Rick’s standard offer to any entrepreneur is 30 minutes, no harm, no foul. Rick thinks that every entrepreneur who wants to take a shot should get to take that shot.
• Jason says to hire the best talent you can, no matter where they are. He says you don’t need to go to San Francisco.
• The main way to keep costs down is headcount, according to Jason. Also, don’t go buy the server farm before you have any customers. Jason says you should be able to build any product with three people, max. If you need ten people or even five, its too complex, so keep the team small.
• The way to build an audience is by teaching, according to Jason. Either you outspend your competition, or you outteach them.
• Finding like-minded people is more difficult. 37signals has done it through the open source community.
• Rick says that in Canada, there’s lots of opportunities for the “put me in coach” deal, and those people will often work twice as hard. And these people become like-minded, because they are looking to you for guidance.
• Jason thinks resumes are a waste of time. He doesn’t care where you went to school or if you finished school, as long as you do great work. It’s about fucking time someone important said this, thank you Jason, I couldn’t agree more. The school system is largely a waste of time (with regards to tech) as far as I am concerned.
• Rick believes very strongly that the Canadian VC market is not taking enough risk, doesn’t fail enough, and doesn’t take enough flyers. The problem is that the community is very small.
• At the high school and post secondary level, we need to allow people to try things in entrepreneurship, says Rick. If anyone gets a startup camp going, Rick wants to know about it, and he’d be happy to get people and money there.
• There’s lots of potential downsides to taking money. You might get pushed out, you might be forced to go public, etc.
• Rick says when he does a valuation on the company, he does two things. How much capital is going to be required to create that success? How can he stage those dollars into the company? Rick doesn’t do participating, preferred, double dip shares or anything. The best deal possible is common shares. The worst thing you can do is make someone feel like they didn’t win. At the end of the day, Rick wants the entrepreneur to feel like he/she has a partner.
• There has to be a liquidity event for a VC, so after you take money, Rick says there is a meter running to get to that event, so the entrepreneur has to want to sell, or go public.
• Web 2.0 boils down to service, according to Rick. They are successful with passionate customers.
• Jason says that founders shares look good for entrepreneurs nowadays.