MyBlogLog Rumor

MyBlogLog, a company loyal readers know I've blogged about a few times, is currently in "very early stage" talks with Yahoo. Contrary to the rumors today, Yahoo has not actually bought them, yet. Stay tuned for updates (and possibly a post on how blogging has affected news reporting, now that I think of it).

As always, best of luck to Scott, Eric, and the team at MBL over the next few days as this plays out.

So Close, But So Far

Tuesday, November 7, was a historic day. Guess why. What's that you say? Something about an election?

No, it was important because it was the beginning of the 2nd annual Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco. And it's the place to be. It's the flashiest, sexiest, coolest conference in the Valley this year (and I'm stuck in Philly. And it's raining, of course).

And not without reason - Web 2.0 is the rage of the Valley right now. But we've seen rages come and go. The last one, lovingly nicknamed Web 1.0 after the fact, we probably remember all too clearly. I blogged about the new Internet early in the summer, and those thoughts are mostly still valid, but they also represent the oogling of wide-eyed newbie.

And, in that post, I never really addressed the what: what's the real deal with this Web 2.0 nonsense? I'd say it's mostly glitz and glamor - Silicon Valley doing its version of Hollywood. We have our gossip, and our rumors, and it makes sense we have that thing, that ideal, that is very much en vogue right now.

And, as with all buzz words, Web 2.0 has come to mean a lot of things - anything social, viral, AJAX, API-related, and much more has been dubbed "Web 2.0" at one point or another. However, some of the really "2.0" attributes, especially the social features and user generated content, have always been around, albeit with much less fanfare.

But I'm beating around the bush and avoiding the question - does the Web 2.0 represent a fundamental shift in the way we use the internet, or not?

Yes - but not for the reasons you'll hear from most people. Gurus will tell you that the Web 2.0 phenomena is unique because of the great, lifestyle changing ideas that are being churned out. I'd argue the enabling technologies and changing social norms, far more than the ideas and websites themselves, deserve credit for bringing about the online movement.

Disagree? Think about it. Think about the sites that come to mind when you think Web 2.0. YouTube? Brought to you by faster internet speeds and a cool new flash player. Facebook? Brought to you by the ease of internet access on college campuses. MySpace? Ditto, for homes and kids. (Venturing into the more geeky...) Digg? The proliferation of computers and the adoption of the internet as a form of entertainment, causing people to turn to the Web when they're bored. Flickr? The mass adoption of high quality digital cameras and, again, increased connection speeds, making it possible to upload more photos online.

The point is, Web 2.0 has it's roots in the development of computers and electronics - stuff is easier and faster, and some smart people have found ways to leverage that into neat businesses. You can deduce factors, social or technological, behind the success of most 2.0 sites that have little to do with the sites themselves. But don't get me wrong - the ideas and web sites of today are great - brilliant designs by brilliant people (well, some).

In the end, Web 2.0 should not be thought of merely as some cool new web sites, but the harmonic convergence of a variety of variables, empowering the individual to do much more on and with the internet than he ever has in the past.

But that is where we must be careful. "Web 2.0" is great, but it's far too sexy of a term for what should be a fairly long lasting era. And with that "sexy-ness" comes the requisite over-investment.

So VCs beware - the darkside of Web 2.0 is creeping in - irrational exuberance is in the air. (I totally didn't mean to rhyme there.) Money is being poured into start ups at a record rate once again, even with the memory of the bust fresh in our heads. VCs are enamored with the new "generation" of web start ups, to point where it could be dangerous. Whether Web 2.0 causes another bubble is yet to be seen.

But evil, good, fake, real, or bubble, Web 2.0 is currently being discussed. A lot. And I really, really wish I were there...

Thanks WEP

The Wharton Entrepreneurial Programs quarterly newsletter did a piece on Wharton-pedigree bloggers, and, for some reason, I made the cut. The article is here, in case you wanted to give it a read, and I'm mentioned about halfway down. I especially like the comparison of this blog to a flamethrower (as opposed to a flashlight) - I don't think they could have given me a higher compliment. :)

Anyway, thanks to Tim, Peter, and everyone over at WEP for the shoutout.

Powerset Update

Powerset, the natural language search start up I mentioned on a previous post, has raised some money. $12.5 million, to be exact, from Foundation Capital ($7m), The Founders Fund ($3m), and some pretty studly angel investors ($2.5m combined), as VentureBeat reported just a few minutes ago.

The kicker, though, is that they got a $31 million pre and $42.5 million post valuation. Wow. Google just may be in trouble if these guys can do what they say they can do.

Stay tuned, this could be the beginning of an epic battle...

MyBlogLog's new look + lessons

I figured after a piece on Rafer, the logical next post should profile his "day job" - MyBlogLog. I've mentioned them in the past, as I worked on a couple of their projects over the summer. This will be the first of three posts (about the three companies I worked for) where I include what I did, what I learned, random thoughts, etc.

For a full description of the service, refer to a post I wrote on them earlier in the summer.

In short, my MyBlogLog work was mostly marketing and business development-oriented. I got to contact some of the major gossip sites on the web and convince them to use our service, which was pretty cool.

I think the biggest lesson I learned from the experience was the fallibility of the "build it and they will come" approach. Sure, a good product is necessary, but it is far from sufficient. By actively recruiting big name sites and strategically positioning themselves as not only a blogging tool but a social network and all purpose click tracking service, MyBlogLog has gained users and opened up their target market significantly.

The company has a great product (if you're a serious blogger, blog reader, gossiper, etc., go use it), but their ability to convince users to adopt them will determine if they are successful in the long run. "Build it and they will come" sounds great but isn't always reality.

The second biggest lesson I learned was flexibility, though that was more from the company's story. Basically, they started out as just a click tracking site but were astute enough to change directions when they realized they could expand their offering. Yes, it's trite and cliche, but it was still cool to work for a company that successfully was able to switch gears and take advantage of a growth opportunity.

As a side note, their recent relaunch has went over fairly well. The site's new look cements their service as both a social network and functional tool for bloggers and many others. Good work to Scott, Eric, and the MBL team.

Rafer in the Merc

So we at Penn Six (comedy/a capella group I'm in) had our fall show this past weekend, and I finally have the time to devote to this blog, which has been barren of late.

Anyway, I know I promised articles on other stuff, but I had to write about this - my boss and fearless leader over the summer, Scott Rafer, was featured in an article in the San Jose Mercury about entrepreneurs who are captaining or heavily involved in multiple start ups. And Scott definitely embodies the part.

The coolest part about working for him this summer was not only getting to see him work his magic but trying my hand at it as well. As I've mentioned on this blog, I spent time working on projects for WINKsite, Mashery, and MyBlogLog, as well as a personal project when I could spare the time.

In particular, one of Scott's quotes from the article, "VCs spread their risk across numerous companies. Why shouldn't we?," really stood out to me. Spreading risk was one of the Rafer-isms I got all summer, and he makes a very good point.

Being an entrepreneur isn't easy. Hell, it's for the crazy ones, not the sane ones. No stable paycheck. No 9-5. Just a dream to make it big against the odds (really against the odds). And I really don't even know the half of it. It's easy to work for a start up for 3 months over the summer when you're under the same roof as your parents, but doing it for a living requires a lot of luck and even more skill.

Yet Rafer manages to pull it off - not only does he make a livelihood out of being an entrepreneur, he does it with mostly small start ups. The biggest lessons I learned over the summer were balancing and prioritizing - taking safer gigs to counter the risky ones and knowing which one is the most important (and communicating that to everyone involved).

But my most important realization went a level deeper: at the end of the day, the serial entrepreneur is doing more than just minimizing risk - he's living his dream. Working more than just a day job, especially for start ups, has got to be fueled by passion. Though practical reasons justify the decision to take on multiple projects at once, love for the work has to drive it.

(By the way, Scott, I'm going to use this post as a spring board for the write ups I promised a while ago. Sorry, it's taken so long, but they'll be up soon.)

I'm back (again)

Sorry for the recent break in posting. I've been busy. Very busy. But it's mostly over, and in the meantime the valley hasn't slept much.

Stay tuned for posts on, in no particular order, Friendster and their patent, MyBlogLog, The Venice Project, GooTube (finally), the various financials released this past week (once Microsoft gets theirs out next week), the web and user generated art, the emergence of localized websites (a discussion stemming from SmallTown's recent launch), and maybe even a guess piece on Amarnth and their recent collapse. Not sure if/when I'll get to all of them, but keep reading.

As a side note, you're welcome Zach and Mike (the MyKin guys) - I hope it boosted traffic for you guys (though I really doubt it did much:). And I promise to be nice with the reporter from that Iowa paper.

MyKin

Over the summer, I was fortunate enough to represent Mashery at a variety of conferences and networking events. They were, in a word, an experience. Picture a gathering of genuine Silicon Valley nerds (yours truly included, of course) sprinkled with a few smooth talking VCs, prominent entrepreneurs, and generally crazy characters.

Two of the most memorable people I rubbed shoulders with would fall mostly into that last category, and I say that with nothing but love. At an event in San Francisco, I met Mike Basten and Zach Smith, a duo who had just launched a social networking site for families.

But here's the kicker: to promote the site, they went on a national tour in a '71 VW Bus. Literally, they threw some computer equipment and two mattresses in this van and set off across the country from Iowa.

How utterly awesome is that? As someone who considers entrepreneurship to run in his blood, I have an enormous amount of respect for the two of them. So when Mike called me the other day, it clicked that I should dedicate my next post to profiling MyKin, as I had promised a non big name one anyway.

So, MyKin.us. As mentioned, it's basic concept is a social network for families. Today, MySpace (and now Facebook) offer a social slant that doesn't work well for families (the average kid probably wouldn't want family members to frequent their MySpace page).

MyKin's concept revolves around the connectedness that families usually share. MyKin gives families an online forum for communicating and sharing photos. The social networking aspects of the site are fairly typical (can set up families and family friends, send messages, etc.), but my two favorite parts of the site are the photo share and family tree. The first is very practical - families always have pictures they'd love to show their relatives in other parts of the country but don't always have a set way of doing so.

The family tree is really cool, despite an ambiguous functionality. For example, if you get your entire extended family on the site, the tree gives you a graphic view of how everyone is connected. Keeping track of or in touch with distant relatives becomes much easier.

Overall, MyKin's outlook is fairly rosy. The success of these sites is always a crap shoot, but I truly believe the idea behind it is fairly practical and helps families keep in touch. From a Web 2.0 framework, the site is fairly viral, as one family member will actively try to get his family on the site. However, word-of-mouth has a harder time working between families, as individuals probably won't try as hard to get non-family members on the site.

Anyway, its great to see the Valley spirit alive and well, especially when it's not in the Valley. Win or lose, a project like this is always great to see. Best of luck to Mike and Zach.

Google Buys YouTube

I had to. Because, well, they did it.

I know I said I was going to refrain from posts on the big names a bit, and I've got drafts of pieces on lesser known, non Silicon Valley start ups in the works. But I had to give my 2 cents on the big news.

The rumor mill had been churning for a while, and the whispers were dead on. Today, Google formally announced the purchase of YouTube, the rapidly growing video sharing site, for $1.65 billion.

My thoughts on the acquisition are mixed. In some ways, YouTube is a copyright nightmare just waiting to happen, as Mark Cuban wrote a little while back. The company could turn into the next Napster, and with Google backing it, that could bode poorly for the leading search engine.

On the flip side, Google wants their foot in the online video ad world, and this is a great way to realize that goal.

My overall conclusion is that time will tell. If Google can dodge or safely navigate the lawsuits and lega issues, the move will probably be a positive one. However, the impending cloud of legal worries puts a definite damper on the purchase.

The opinion pieces are everywhere on this one, so I'll save you some time and wait a little while before putting my thoughts up at length.

Google Killers

First off, two apologies. First, I haven't been writing much recently - school work and other projects here at Penn are taking quite a bit of my time. Second, this blog has not turned into serial commentary on Facebook, Google, and the other big names. They just seem to be the things that have inspired me recently. After this post (which isn't even entirely about Google), I promise to do some pieces on the underground movers, shakers, and trends in our beloved Silicon Valley (or maybe the wasteland of Philadelphia:).

On to Google, and their imminent death. OK, not really, but the wheels are in motion. Companies like Google don't die: they're too big. Google has made it big time, so it won't belly up per say anytime soon. The big timers don't die - they are simply transformed into zombies, shells of their once-great selves, that whither away over a long period of time.

The fertile ground of the Bay Area has been sowed with the seeds of companies that will one day challenge Google. The talk of the town today is Powerset, a search start up that allows people to use natural language when searching and takes into account words that Google ignores. For example (borrowed from the Techcrunch article about the company), "books by kids" is different from "books for kids" is different from "books about kids" in real life, but Google sees them all as "books kids" and returns results accordingly. (An in depth article about Powerset is on VentureBeat.)

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. The new, cool search sites are popping up all over the place. A close friend of mine worked at one in Emeryville (near Berkeley) over the summer that incorporated neural networks and thus approached search from a radically different perspective compared to Google, which clings to their patented, antiquated technology (details withheld due to secrecy issues).

The point is that Google's core competency, search, is under fire. Like many Silicon Valley titans with a once-groundbreaking product, Google has chose to diversify their business rather than focus on what makes them good. Their basic offering hasn't really changed in 8 years, and it's now ripe for replacing.

And though it may not seem like it, search is still quite inefficient. Studies report that around 50% of users aren't satisfied with the relevancy of the results from their searches. And, of course, any techie will tell you the Holy Grail of computer science is not only developing a fast, thorough search algorithm but also enabling the search engine to understand exactly what the user desires.

And that's exactly what the next generation search engine will do, whether it's Powerset or someone else.