Facebook Apps

I know this blog has been silent of late. I apologize. We're working, plus I'm back at school and am dealing with classes as well.

But anyway, I've been doing some thinking about Facebook apps recently. When they came out, they were all the rage in the Valley (and elsewhere, to a lesser extent). Each VC asked you about your "Facebook strategy" and the like. Hell, a number of VC firms started (or flirted with starting) microfunds dedicated solely to Facebook apps.

As an interesting side note, I got a bit of a sneak peak into this process. At the beginning of the summer, a good friend (Scott, of course) put me in touch with Greylock regarding the project that has now become Athleague. Greylock approached us as part of an initiative within the firm to provide Facebook applications with small (low 5 figure) seed rounds. As we corresponded throughout the summer, their enthusiasm for Facebook app funding slowly waned until, in August, they told us they weren't going forward with the microfinancing idea anymore.

I'd say the general pulse on Facebook apps has followed the same trend. Through there are some who still swear that the Facebook platform is the next Windows (something I did when the Platform first came out), the general consensus seems to be that apps, at least right now, aren't capable of making much money.

So that brings us back to the question - is the platform really that big of a deal, or not? I've been brainstorming, and I still think it could be. Specifically, when thinking about our Facebook strategy, I've realized that our app needs to be one that closely integrates with our website.

And perhaps, in a broader sense, that could be the key. Perhaps the apps themselves aren't as important as the traffic they drive to their website they represent. This, of course, calls for tight integration - allowing users to access and alter data from both portals (the website itself and Facebook) and giving them a compelling reason to go to an app's website after installing the app.

It could be a while before we actually see these kinds of apps. But, long run, I think these are the ones that could actually fulfill the promise (monetarily and utility-wise) of the Facebook platform.

Announcing: Athleague

So this blog has been silent for a while. And it's because we've been busy - we being Athleague, a project I've been spending the summer on.

In short, Athleague aims to be the social utility of all amateur athletes of all ages - a place to find the best local soccer league or pick up game, or a tool to organize your team or league. However, we have a humble initial goal - to be an online solution for league administrators. Feel free to read more about us on The Official Athleague Blog.

What's even cooler is that we're now in public beta. To test out our site, go to beta.athleague.com and register for an account. Create and join teams and leagues and, above all, tell us what you think! If you don't understand something, it's because we suck and didn't explain it. Let us know what we're doing wrong, and enjoy.

Open Platforms

You're sure this is going to be about Facebook, right?

Not so much, though Facebook is definitely the inspiration. Actually my quandary has more to do with the two 800 lb. gorillas in the web space. Specifically, why don't they open up a "platform," or at least something resembling one?

Really, all the Facebook platform does is two things: 1) it lets you log on to other websites using your Facebook login and put some self-expressive/marginally useful widget on your profile, and 2) it give third party applications certain information that Facebook has collected to enhance the application quality and experience.

Well, minus the profile widgets, can't Yahoo and Google do the same? Personally, Google knows a ton about me - my contacts, my searches, the ads I've clicked on, and probably more stuff that I don't want to even know they know. So, why not open up a platform?

Hell, it could be as easy as letting third party websites authenticate users via their Google/Yahoo log in, a little bit like the login process of websites that have been bought by either of the two (Blogger, Flickr, etc.). How cool would it be to be able to try out new websites without having to go through the annoying sign-up/verification? Maybe that particular feature is targeted more at the early adopter crowd, but I'm sure the geniuses at those companies can come up with a compelling list of benefits for the average user.

I mean, say, all of a sudden, you could log on to any website with your Yahoo email address and password. I haven't touched my Yahoo account in years, but I'd dust it off if it could all of a sudden get me access to every site on the web. And maybe they could negotiate putting a Yahoo ad next to the log in box on every page.

It's a little easier said then done, but maybe one of the big boys will have the cojones to try something crazy...

Basketball's Moneyball

Surprisingly hard-hitting article on the NBA draft coming out of ESPN.com today. In the piece, John Hollinger proposes a statistical system for judging incoming collegiate basketball talent, an approach reminiscent of the Oakland A's draft strategy, as discussed in Michael Lewis's Moneyball.

It's a great study - Hollinger really breaks down the draft and assembles an algorithm that does a great job rating the players - better than the market does (based on comparing results from the system applied to previous drafts with how the drafts themselves played out). It's by no means a quantum leap, but it still does appear to do a significantly better job.

I guess it's just further proof that market efficiency rears its (pretty? ugly? you decide) head everywhere. It'll be interesting to see how, if at all, these rankings affect how the draft actually goes down...

Penn-er Tearing Up the Blogosphere

Specifically, Emily Smith, a friend and classmate. She's interning at the DNC and is a contributer on the DNC blog (I know, how cool is that). You can read one of her recent posts here. Keep checking back, as I'm sure she'll be tearing it up through the summer and beyond. And Em - get a dedicated blog so you can tell us how crazy the world is 24/7.

It's amazing how the web is changing the way campaigns are run. Good luck to her and all those embracing it:).

Why I Love Technology

Just thought I'd continue the "Why I Love" theme. I've got a meeting with Scott Rafer in a few hours, and he said we should meet at a coffee shop on Union Square, as we'd be here for Supernova anyway. I said sure, but asked him which one. He responded by saying he had no idea what the name was, but sent me a picture. I got on Google maps, switched into street view, and scanned for a coffee shop that matched the picture. It took all of 30 seconds. That's why I love technology.

Why I Love the Valley

I'm here at Supernova, but I've got a completely unrelated story I wanted to share. On the way here this morning, I took Caltrain and decided to walk here to Union Square from the SF station in SOMA. I've walked it a bunch before, but I was a little curious how many blocks it was. So, I turned and asked the person walking next to me. Our conversation:

"Hey, how many blocks is it to Union Square?"
"No idea, I work a couple blocks from the station and don't really walk all the way there."
"Oh, where do you work?"
"Powerset."

How cool is that. I love how I can walk down a street here and randomly meet a guy working for one of Silicon Valley's most hyped companies. Though we tend to hype quite a few ventures, some of the hype inevitably translates to revolutionary companies that change the way we live. Maybe Powerset isn't one of them, but maybe it is, and it's cool that it started here.

Supernova, June 21-22

Just wanted to let you all know I'll be at Supernova at this Thursday and Friday (June 21st and 22nd). Supernova is a tech/business conference put on by the Wharton School with a bunch of pretty cool speakers and whatnot, and it'll be at the Westin St. Francis hotel in Union Square. If you want to meet up there or in the city at any point Thursday and Friday (and possibly Wednesday), drop me a line.

Blogger Bug?

Not a huge one, but an annoying one. When you start a post and save it as draft form, Blogger saves the time/date you started the post, and, when you eventually put the post up, attaches the saved time/date to the post, rather than the time/date at the time of posting.

Most of the time, this isn't a big deal. However, I'm a fan of starting posts and then leaving them in draft form to revise or finish later - not an entirely uncommon drafting method.

Well, with Blogger, say you start a long post, save it in draft form, and then put up a short post about a random thought the next day. When you come back to the first piece and finish it, it appears below the second post on your blog, even though it was posted later.

So, if you want the post you just finished to be the first one on your blog, you have to copy the text to a new post. Not hard, just annoying.

The above also explains why my Facebook Platform post says it went up May 30th when, in reality, it was posted June 10th. Like I said, not a huge bug, but odd that Google hasn't thought of or noticed it...

Nuclear Power

Today's article in the Merc got me thinking. The piece was the second of a two part series on green energy. The first focused on the usual suspects (solar, wind, water, etc.), but today's discussed some of the pros and cons of nuclear power, touting it as the "alternative-energy dark horse."

My first thought was a deep one: "Duh." I've often wondered what happened to the promise of nuclear power, especially as greentech companies have been getting more and more funding over the past couple of years. Decades ago, nuclear power was touted as the answer to our energy problems. But here we are today, putting more stock in the sun, water, and wind to power our future.

And I don't really understand why. In my mind, nuclear power is clearly the future. My math might be fuzzy here (or I could just be wrong, feel free to call me out), but I'm pretty sure nuclear power holds a magnitude or two (or more?) more promise than other forms of alternative energy. Quite literally, nuclear reactions release much more power than those that take place in solar cells and windmills. Take a basic quantum class and you realize E=mc² means you can get a ton of energy out of a relatively small amount of mass.

Granted, nuclear power is not without its drawbacks. The technology behind current plants, fission reactions, creates radioactive byproducts and is generally hard to control (though many plants have done so successfully). However, as the article points out, these products are limited to small amounts and probably do less damage than all the carbon we're emitting into the atmosphere.

Furthermore, fission power is the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Anyone remember SimCity 2000 (circa 1995ish)? Remember speeding up time so you could get the fusion power plant? Granted, an actual fusion power plant is still far in the future (I think the game put it as being available in 2040), but I'm fairly sure we'll see on in our lifetime. As some of you know, fusion is fission's stronger, cleaner big brother.

(Quick physics lesson being done from memory - correct me if I'm wrong: Fission takes an atom, usually uranium, and pulls it separates it into two atoms while fusion combines two atoms into one. Both reactions release energy corresponding to the loss in mass, according to E=mc².)

Point is, at the quantum level, energy is abundant. Harnessing these powerful reactions safely is the key to unlocking the potential they hold. Nuclear power is one great example of this, and others will surely emerge as research is done. Perhaps someday, mega-powerful reactions like combining matter and antimatter (referenced in Dan Brown's Angels and Demons) will be commonplace sources of energy.

For the time being, searching the world around us for natural forms of energy is a noble goal. But, in the long run, we're going to need to think small to find the energy we need - so shouldn't we start putting money there now?