« January 2008 | Main

October 27, 2008

W-evolution

A friend of mine just sent me this article cum press release for a new IBM web platform: http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/152771/ibm_crafts_web_30_collaboration_tools.html.  He commented that it felt to him like a lot of todo over nothing.  Here is my response:

Their trick is that it's not really new.  Ruby on Rails has been doing this since '05 at least.  Think campfire, etc.  It might be web 2.5 but as long as AJAX is the language they're using, it's not a leap forward (think how AJAX and Ruby on Rails were web 2.0 to HTML, ASP/JSP, and Flash's web 1.0).
I haven't seen a real web 3.0 technology, unless it relates to mobile.  I think that we're stuck in a "cloud computing" model and will be for the next five years or so.  That's both good and bad.  Good  because there's a lot of s/w that still needs to move to the web and will do so in this cycle.  Bad because we're not going to see a lot of really new web innovation for desktops & workstations.
That said, the move to mobile could really be something.  For example, I can watch a how-to video on my PC, but that doesn't help me fix my car.  However, if I can pull it up on an iPod Touch/iPhone/Blackberry, then I can watch it in one hand while wrenching on the engine block with the other. 
I think that kind of innovation will really drive productivity.  The other outstanding question is how to monetize it.  In the case of how-to videos, it's easy - like sponsored search.  You're watching it because you want to know how to do it, so if I show you a product that helps you do it, you're pretty likely to buy it.  Better yet, I provide one-click ordering from your phone and/or allow you to click to call a sales rep.
But what about more obtuse apps, like social networking?  How does it increase productivity, and how do I monetize it?  The first part is easy: in a mobile environment, social networking apps can increase my productivity in my environment by increasing my rate of serendipity.  By serendipity, I mean the ratio of contacts with new people to connections with people with whom I develop a symbiotic relationship.  Mobile helps because it allows me to optimize serendipity in, as Maverick in Top Gun would say, a "target-rich environment", connecting with people in the room with whom I have overlapping interests and expertise.
But how do I monetize it?  Can I charge for access to a person?  That's what match.com does, but I don't think it will work well on a grander scale.  Can I make it a subscription club?  LinkedIn has tried this, but they only seem to get business from sketchy salesguys.  Perhaps I can sell a subscription to the mobile app as access to a free web platform.  That's the closest thing to a workable business model that I can think of for now, and if someone offered me the ability to add location to my facebook mobile app, I'd probably take it.  However, the challenge is that the app is only worthwhile if other people buy it too.  The paradox of web 2.0 all over again - my company's value is based on my community, but generating revenue is orthogonal to growing that community. 
So my belief is that web 3.0 is a murky concept, and until the path to profitability for mobile becomes a bit more clear development in the space will be stifled.  We're going to continue to see a lot of experimentation with new apps for iPhones, Blackberries, Windows Mobile, and Android but it's unclear how many will have sticking power beyond wizz-bang! appeal.  Will revenue be generated through a Handango/iTunes storefront?  Advertising?  Some other model? 
I don't know the answer, but from what I know of my own purchasing habits revenue will come from providing real value to users.  It's also my belief that mobile users will be the most discrinating and demanding web consumers to date.

 

Posted by ash.dyer at 09:08 AM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Time to Buy?

This post is just a quick note to comment on some recent trends in the markets.  I think at this point, few of us are still trying to call a bottom.  If that's really become the case, then we're a step closer in what Barron's Mike Santoli calls the market's "capitulation".  That is, investors giving up, getting scared, and moving money to the sidelines.

I guess that's necessary and part of the cycle.  However, it's created loads of very low-risk deals.  You can find any number of stocks with dividend yields now well above those of corporate bonds.  That means that you're getting an almost guaranteed rate of return on equity that's higher than the almost guaranteed rate of return on bonds, which are a safer investment due to their placement in the capital structure.  This return is not without its risks, of course, as the dividend relies on good earnings and the board of directors not deciding to cut it.  However, I think there are plenty of stocks for which it is the case.

Most importantly, to most people who would argue with me, the question is not of calling a bottom, but rather, as Warren Buffet pointed out in his recent op-ed in the NY Times, of deciding at what price you're willing to own the stocks.  Some good deals may go away, others will not.  I'm in it for the long haul, so I'm happy to jump on a good deal when I see it.  If it drops 10% in the near term, so what?  Maybe I'll buy some more to average down on my cost basis.  However, I'm confident, along with Buffet, that in 10 years time these stocks will be worth more than their weight in gold, and I'll have been paid handsomely to hold them the whole time.

Posted by ash.dyer at 08:39 AM | | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)