Bill Gates’ Critics – they just can’t handle the truth!


I get so tired of reading the innane drivel criticizing Bill Gates’ excellent vision of global prosperity through more innovative approaches to global capitalism.    Gates is right on, and this should be obvious to those who care about capitalism OR who care about bringing prosperity to the billions who suffer in developing countries.

Over at TechCrunch people are ranting irrationally about bootstrap prosperity in the selfish and foolish way US technophiles often do, oblivious to the causes and circumstances of poverty in the developing world and without any compassion for the *hundreds of millions* of children mired in poverty around the world.  

Here’s how I vented over there:

Bravo to Gates. Many of the comments here floored me with their lack of insight.
First, to suggest Gates is not sincere is nonsensical. His record of philanthropy is clear, focused, and brilliant. Whatever you think of Microsoft’s history of sometimes ruthless corporate dominance you simply are not paying attention to think Gates vision of global prosperity is not genuine. I’d even go so far as to suggest Gates fortune was made largely through the purchases of other affluent people, and now he’s giving most of it to the poor. That is a virtuous cycle if I ever saw one.

Second, the notion that unfettered capitalism is the most expeditious way to feed the poor and improve the infrastructures of poor countries is naive and dangerous. Even Adam Smith noted that types of intervention are needed to preserve the integrity and power of free market forces. In nations that suffer from corrupt or short sighted leadership and cumbersome bureaucracies (that is to say, all nations), we need to bring modified capitalism to bear ASAP if we want to stabilize prosperity and lift the billion+ people who are simply out of the virtuous globalized capital loop. Gates point is that more innovative approaches to capitalism will benefit everybody, and he’s spot on.

Meanwhile Open Sourcer Matt Asay is conflating open source issues and Microsoft with global development, seeming to suggest that the fastest way to global prosperity is to bring Open Source to the world and kill Microsoft.   Here’s what I wrote over there:

No. Emphatically. You are correct that Open Source is great, and also that Microsoft has strategically fought against open source. But Gates is correctly working to reallocate personal and corporate responsibilities. He’s saying that more of the big profits and big innovation should be focused on improving the lot of those in the developing world. This is a profound approach and a virtuous one.

I don’t think it is reasonable to ask Microsoft to be a key player in dismanting decades of their corporate dominance, even though I’m happy to see that fade. It’s also unreasonable to suggest the benefits of Open Source development will necessarily flow to the world’s poorest people. More likely they’ll flow to those of us in first world who are able to take advantage of them. I’m big on Open Source, but hardly think Microsoft should be a leader in that space. I’m even bigger on focusing attention on developing world problems and the kind of conflation of issues here simply confuses people.

Gates is speaking today at the Davos conference.   It would be nice if  people actually listen to what he is saying.

Video Games Rulez!?


Video Gaming is a substantial economy.   Last year saw over 18 billion in US gaming sales, about 9 billion each from games and 9 billion from the sale of the consoles – gaming computers like XBox360 and WII.  

Gaming saw a whopping 28% gain over 2006 which is particularly conspicuous in a year where music sales saw a 10% decline and motion picture revenues were flat at about 9 billion.

Ars Technica Reports

Bill Gates on the second “digital decade”


Tonight at CES Bill Gates delivered his final CES (and perhaps final in the industry) keynote. The key announcements included a partnership with NBC to deliver video online for *every single sport* at the Olympics – some 3600 hours in total and I think he indicated close to real time. Also impressive was Microsoft’s work with partner “Tellme” and MS mapping to bring powerful voice and map navigation capabilities to the mobile space. They noted that mobile advertising will be some (11 billion?) by 2011, and that although they feel PCs will remain very important it’s clearly the mobile phone space where a lot of key innovation will be seen.

Back at MIX06 I noted that Microsoft had not yet embraced the social media revolution that clearly was going to dominate the online experience. I think they have now done so, but they may be too late. The demos of something called “Zune Social” were neat, but I noted the key feature was the ability to integrated with a Facebook profile. I’d argue that Open Social (or some variation on that theme), that is very largely company agnostic, will ultimately prevail. I didn’t get the idea Zune Social would be a big winner over time, but …

(posted from the CES Bloghaus! Thanks Seagate and Podtech!)

Update:  Engadget will have an interview up soon 

Oink


Nick Carr over at Rough Type has one of the cleverest techno posts written in some time as he addresses the  little brouhaha over enterprise vs consumer software.    In fact I’d give him the tech blogging Pulitzer Prize simply for this turn of phrase:

Rubberneckers leaping gleefully onto the Techmeme pig pile

More to the point he’s talking about the silliness of the technobabbling echo chamber as well as the silliness of enterprise software folks making mostly foolish distinctions between types of software.   

There is an alarming trend among mostly “old school” developers and programmers and analysts to make a variety of questionable assumptions about technology that are based on failing to recognize how different things have become.  Even new school folks routinely overbuild websites and application environments simply becausae they’ve been taught that is the way you do technology. Worst is the idea that complex software is needed to run complex companies.   WRONG!    It is true that complex software is almost always used by big companies, but this is primarily a function of legacy issues (ie they started their systems back in the day when there were NO simple solutions) and IT turf issues (e.g pretend you are the head of Exxon’s IT division and you are asking for a BIG raise and more options.   Are you more likely to get the promotion by proposing a shift to Google documents across much of the corporate enterprise, or by proposing a highly customized SAP solution only you understand?   Also, it takes a kind of innovative thinking that I think is sometimes missing from the school of old timers.

Bhatia’s battle to give you free software … Game ON!?


Over at Webguild I noted a really interesting quote from Sabeer Bhatia, co-founder of HotMail, who suggested very recently that shrinkwrapped software is dead and everybody is going to go online for their office and other applications by 2010.    Consistent with this hypothesis and blustering claim, Bhatia has just launched a new online suite of MS office-like tools.   

Sridhar over at Zoho blogs is really taking Bhatia to task for suggesting that the new product, Instacoll, might capture 1% of the market.   Of course Zoho is not exactly a fan of Instacoll which is a very direct competitor to their offerings, but Sridhar’s point is that venture capital people don’t want companies to shoot for 1% of a market – they want it all.

Frankly, I’m not convinced by any of these points.  People are stubborn with changes.  So first, I think Microsoft will keep plugging along and shrinkwrap will die a slow, not quick, death.   Microsoft’s version of online office tools will be in the best position to win in this game because if they do it cleverly they will slowly transition a huge customer base from Word and Excel and Access over to the online environments and find ways to make money during and after the transition.    

Second, only Microsoft and Google with maybe Yahoo as a distant runner up shot, are likely to capture the online document market.   Why will people choose Instacall or Zoho when they can go with the big guys?    Assume you have three free parties and you are invited to all of them.   They all have a nice dinner for you with similar food, and all are just around the block.   One is at my house, the other at your friend’s house,  and the other at Bratt Pitt and Angelina Jolie’s place.    You are going to Brangelinas, just like you are going to use Google docs.    1% of the office market?   Maybe, but what are you having for dinner again?

Blodget: Microsoft implying they may be poised to buy Yahoo


Henry Blodget’s got an interesting take on the recent UBS talk by Microsoft where they suggested a plan to capture “30-40%” of the search market over the next several years.  Although the literal reading of this does not seem to suggest a Yahoo buyout, Blodget is correct that it is simply absurd, even given the normal Microsoft bluster factor, for Microsoft to think they can capture this much of the market in a short time …. unless they buy Yahoo, which as Blodget points out gives them all this, and more, instantly.  

Given Yahoo’s modest capitalization of some 30 billion, and Yahoo’s huge online prospects (they have similar traffic to Google but with far poorer monetization of traffic), it would not be prohibitive for Microsoft to nab them.

I’ve noted before this would be an excellent move for Microsoft.  It still is.

Disclaimer: I’ve got some Yahoo shares.   Not that they are doing me much good right now.    But they’d probably jump in value if Microsoft bought them.   Did this influence me writing about this?   I don’t think so, but since money is the root of all evil you can’t really trust me on Yahoo analyses, disclaimers or not.   Also important is that nobody can predict the market swings with any forward looking reliability.   So there. 

Open Social challenge – Guilt by Open-Social-Association ?


Don Dodge has an excellent post today where he suggests the Open Social hype machine has spun out of control.    I don’t really agree with him because I think Open Social is a sincere effort by Google to create the truly open social networking many have been wanting for some time.    At the same time I would say there are a lot of challenges with Open Social, and it certainly was an aggressive move to kick Microsoft in the Face-book and take the winds out of the Microsoft Facebook partnership deal.    Google is remarkably good at being sincere, innovative, brilliant, and ruthless all at the same time.  In fact it’s become a hallmark of their success though they never seem to acknowledge the ruthlessness of some of their decisions – it’s kind of a collective delusion at Google that what’s good for the Google is good for the gander.   This is often true, but not always.

Back to Don’s interesting point:   What happens if a friend of yours – on whose profile you appear as a “friend”, goes over to a porn site which is using Open Social networking.   Does your smiling mug and name wind up appearing next to objectionable material?   Yikes – you could lose your job, wife, and family all in one fell Open Social swoop and you never even did anything !     

Although I can’t say be sure I’m confident this problem has been solved.  Probably via some form of content controls or content ratings for sites that are allowed to participate.  Will there be bugs in this?  Of course, as Don notes Plaxo already had a problem with their Open Social implementation, but on balance I think it’s still reasonable to see this as a social networking sea change, albeit one that will take some time to shake out.

The Social Network Reality Show: High stakes, big money, false rumors.


The game is social networks.  The stakes are very high, and the news and rumors are flying fast, furiously, and inaccurately.   Here is the latest in the saga of Google’s Social Networking entry which, with Myspace’s participation, is the new Social Networking juggernaut (though it remains to be seen how all the participants will use it). 

More on the Open Social vs Facebook battle for the hearts and minds of developers and, far more importantly, users:

1)  After a 240,000,000 partnership with Microsoft the blogs (including here) lit up soon after suggesting that Facebook recieved another 500 million from two other private groups.   This was false.   It is very conspicuous in my view that the rumor rose and spread so fast, and that Facebook did nothing to quell that rumor.  This news is still shaking out over at TechCrunch which reported the rumor of the 500 million and now reports it was false.   Another example of how news at the speed of real time may not be news at all.

2) Google says Open Social is open to Facebook and all are welcome (I believe them).

3) Facebook says Google was not keeping them in the loop on Open Social (I believe that as well)

4) Facebook says they may join the Open Social movement, but suggest they have their own great stuff coming shortly.    I’m skeptical they can “out open” Google, though they probably could come up with some great new social networking applications quickly.  

However on balance I think Facebook really is in big trouble here.     Much of the recent hype – which was overdone anyway – assumed that Facebook would be the key beneficiary of the boom in social networking.   The reasoning suggested that although Myspace is  bigger than Facebook it was a “closed” environment, favored by a demographic that has far less value to advertisers.    Facebook, that thinking went, will continue to grow explosively, open up gradually, target advertising very directly, and become the dominant social networking platform. 

Then there was Facebook’s refusal to sell to Yahoo for a reported 1+ billion.  This was followed by big negotiations with many key players, culminating a (much overhyped) 240 million deal with Microsoft to cooperate, run MS Live searches, and drive some MS and Facebook advertising.    Then came the false rumor of 500,000,000 more in capital which for many seemed to solidify Facebook’s valuation of 15 billion – a somewhat sloppy projection of the Microsoft partnership price.

So, what is Facebook worth in an Open Social world where even Myspace is a Google partner?   No, the answer is not 15 billion.

Microsoft wins on matching employee donations – way to go MS!


 This in from Mercury news.   Kudos to Microsoft for this level of generosity, and Google and Yahoo should do *at least* this much!    C’mon Google, you of all companies owe it to the world to help your peeps give back from those fat paychecks and options!

Mercury News Item:

Company giving Microsoft boasts that it provides up to $12,000 in matching funds for employee donations to charity – far surpassing Google, Adobe, Cisco Systems, Hewlett-Packard, Yahoo and eBay. It was the largest corporate giver to United Way Silicon Valley’s last campaign, with $1.2 million in employee and company matching gifts. About 60 percent of its employees donate, far surpassing the usual 20 percent of most valley companies, according to Mark Walker, president of United Way Silicon Valley.

Microsoft loves Facebook


Microsoft bought a 1.6% stake in Facebook today for $240,000,000.   Reported at NYT here.  This give a market value to Facebook of right about 15,000,000,000.   

WoW

I do think Microsoft is smart (and Facebook stupid) to make the cash outlay much smaller than most had thought, giving them an alliance and a powerful foothold without spending the “billions” that apparently would have been required to buy a big stake in the internet’s latest wonder site.

With *revenues* of about 150 million Facebook is now valued at …. wait for this ….. one hundred times revenues.    This is simply a spectacular and speculative valuation, even by internet standards where  even a Google is only valued at about fifty times earnings.   Note that if Google was valued at 100x their expected revenues over the next year their capitalization would be something in the neighborhood of 1.5 trillion dollars.    

Many will suggest that the value in keeping Facebook away from Google was so great that MS has won big, but I’d predict not much will come of this alliance.     Like many online regulars I’m already tiring of Facebook and looking for a completely open, portable social application.   To justify today’s value Facebook will need to grow pretty much like nobody’s ever grown before.    Sure, it’s possible, but I think this will go down with Google’s YouTube aquisition as good money after bad, because monetizing Facebook traffic will be far more problematic than Microsoft seems to think.

All that said, congratulations to the Facebook team who must be popping a few corks about now…. no champagne is good enough for this news.