Posted on March 17, 2008 by JoeDuck

Mashup Contest for students – from Microsoft:

Microsoft Press Release:

To raise awareness for Microsoft’s Live@edu, Microsoft is holding a contest among student software developers to see who can design the best application for Windows Live!

– PRIZES –
● One Grand Prize Winner – $10,000 cash
● Two Runners Up – $2,500 cash each
● Two Third Place Prizes – XBox 360 Halo 3 Prize Pack ($500 value)

Contest Link:
http://www.campusmashups.com

Sample Mashups and how to get started:
http://dev.live.com/mashups/

– JUDGING –
● 25% Public Opinion (GET YOUR FRIENDS TO VOTE!)
● 25% Usage of Windows Live Tools
● 50% Creativity and Utility of Application

Participants must submit their application by March 31st, 2008!

Digg for sale! Again. This time it’s for real. Maybe.

Posted on March 7, 2008 by JoeDuck

TechCrunch is reporting that Digg is likely to get sold soon – probably to Google and probably for about $200,000,000. Good for Kevin Rose and the VC folks, but I’d like to know from the key Diggers if they’ll feel any loyalty to the new owners or to the project. Also, do they think they are owed more than … zero… on this deal?

Social sites do offer their participants something of value = participation and platform – but are there “losers” in these equations?

How do the high level participants who have put in thousands of hours and made the site what it is feel about these cash outs?

I’m wondering how often distribution of equity during the *liquidity* event properly reflects the building of equity. Entrepreneurial capitalism correctly asssumes you need to highly reward risk to get folks to take business risks and innovate. But as Mike Arrington has noted entrepreneurs have a value system that appears to actually assign a high value the thrills and chills of the experience. Thus to get optimal production and innovation it appears to me we need to pay “deeper” on these big internet deals. In the case of a YouTube, DIGG, or Facebook I’d find a way to reward those down the food chain in some proportion to their contribution to the enterprise. It’s possible that these rewards would be small enough that I’m wrong to think this matters much in the overall equation of optimizing the capitalist experience, but even a modest reward would brand the mega deals as “fairer” than simply a situation where fat cats effectively exploit self-motivated worker bees who have generated the user content and social networking that the market values so highly right now.

Microsoft’s Engagement Mapping … a quantum leap … in BS?

Posted on February 25, 2008 by JoeDuck

Initially I read the Microsoft engagement mapping announcement thinking this would be a remarkable innovation. They are claiming that EM will track a consumers interaction with advertising all the way to the point of sale which if done accurately would be a watershed in advertising accountability.

We’ve noted in many posts before how poorly advertisers track offline and even online advertising effectiveness, usually resorting to opportunisic reporting and explanations by their advertising agencies or reporting firms that stay in business because they support the agency advertising spends using questionable metrics.

Enter Engagement Mapping. Microsoft says:

“The ‘last ad clicked’ is an outdated and flawed approach because it essentially ignores all prior interactions the consumer has with a marketer’s message,” said Brian McAndrews, senior vice president of the Advertiser & Publisher Solutions (APS) Division at Microsoft. “Our Engagement Mapping approach conveys how each ad exposure — whether display, rich media or search, seen multiple times on multiple sites and across many channels — influenced an eventual purchase. We believe it represents a quantum leap for advertisers and publishers who are seeking to maximize their online spends.” (bolding mine)

Read the bolded sentence again. Although I’ll have to see the methodology before rejecting it as bogus, that last line does not really suggest objectivity here. Rather it appears this is yet another way for a metric to support a course of action (increase online ad spending) rather than measure the effectiveness of that action.

This is standard fare for ad agencies who feed their kids by exaggerating the effectiveness of their campaigns so I guess it’s no surprise that Microsoft is going to help them do that for the online spends, which benefit…..wait for it ….. GOOGLE! And Microsoft too. But given Google’s approximately 50% share of all online spends I think Eric Schmidt should send Steve Ballmer a really nice gift. Maybe a even a Lazy Boy CHAIR?

MicrosoftOxymorons

Posted on February 21, 2008 by JoeDuck

OK, not quite an oxymoron, but here is the latest “headline” from Microsoft that comes pretty close to contradicting it’s own strategic premise:

Microsoft Makes Strategic Changes in Technology and Business Practices to Expand Interoperability.
New interoperability principles and actions will increase openness of key products.

Huh? Oh, OK, now I get it. Hey, that really is big news, but I wonder if many folks will have a clue what all this means until it’s intrepreted by the media which is generally not all that sympathetic to the Big MS. Why do they write like this? It’s bad enough that these initiatives come like Microsoft is Google’s lap dog, chasing away at quality innovation two or three years too late. Can’t they find somebody to state this stuff clearly?

It seems to me microsoft routinely shoots themselves in the foot before they are even out of the gate. This happens for many reasons, but it is almost as if the company actually believes all the bad things about them and thinks they can only maintain dominance via monopoly and power plays rather than ….ummm…. working a lot harder to be customer centric, highly communicative, innovative and clever. They can do it, but they don’t do it.

Ironically all these goals are a key part of what they are trying to do with this excellent open architecture strategic initiative, but I think this great idea is almost lost in the bizarre Microsoft doublespeak we’ve all come to know and shake our heads at.

How would Google write a corresponding headline?

Microsoft Headline:
Microsoft Makes Strategic Changes in Technology and Business Practices to Expand Interoperability.
New interoperability principles and actions will increase openness of key products.

Google Headline:
We’re OPEN!

Yahoo Headline:
Help, we are about to be held prisoner in a Microsoft Soylent Green Fortune Cookie Factory!

Gates on Yahoo: “It’s the People” | Yahoo on Gates “OMG! He’s making Soylent Green!”

Posted on February 20, 2008 by JoeDuck

As Microsoft prepares for a proxy fight that will pit them agains the Yahoo board in the fight over control of Yahoo, Bill Gates is talking up the deal as a way for Microsoft to access the great talent pool of Yahoo. Although he’s certainly right that Yahoo’s got a lot of great talent, it is not at all clear that most of them will stay and work for Microsoft. I think a lot of the Yahoo staff will see MS as trying to consume them into the Micro Borg mother ship, rather than work with them to make a better Yahoo/MS to fight the Google wars.

I suspect they will if MS treats them right, and I think MS would treat them right, but it would not take an extraordinary poaching effort from Google to effectively dismantle the really great parts of Yahoo. Oh, yes, and this Google poaching has already begun.

A couple years ago – at the Google Party no less – I was involved in a fascinating conversation with one of the key search guys from Microsoft’s search engineering team and another top engineer from Google. One of the most interesting topics was how MS felt that Google had very selectively poached a key Microsoft search insider. The MS guy said until that point he felt Google had been basically playing fair, but that he knew from that episode that Google was strategically picking off people not so much because they wanted them but because Microsoft *needed* them. He felt this defied the “don’t be evil” Google mantra and had soured him on Google’s honesty in these matters. Suffice it to say that as much as I think Google *usually* does follow the “don’t be evil” mantra there was some pretty interesting clandestine activity going on at that party to record the MS guy as several beers got him to spill more beans about the MS algorithm. In fact it was then I realized how weak the MS search effort was with what he said were only 300 engineers working in search, while Google had *thousands*.

Gates is certainly wrong that the cultures are the same. Based on my experiences with people from these three companies I’d suggest the cultures are pretty clear: MS culture is a massive corporate empire with lots of heirarchies, corporate bloat, somewhat overbearing, and diminishes the role of the individual as a key part of the big team. People are not proud to be with MS – they are often almost apologetic.

Google is flexible with lots of lateral motion in terms of project and ideas. Ideas and cleverness will trump formal designations which are few anyway. You can stand next to a top engineer worth tens of millions and a new hire and you can’t tell which is which – not even from the way they treat each other and certainly not from the casual dress or styles. Google people are smart and confident, and generally very helpful and well-informed with the notable exception of questions about ranking quirks where transparency goes pretty much out the window.

Yahoo? I think they *used to be* just like Google, but managed to mov in the direction of managerial bloat and questionable treatment of engineers several years ago. They paid people well, but I think the focus moved away from search and engineering and towards a content and entertainment empire. This was a mistake, and Yahoo’s about to to pay the price – they are about to get absorbed into the MS empire. But don’t worry Yahoo engineers – they are not making much Soylent Green over there anymore. Right Bill?

Ina on Gates

Disclosure: Long on YHOO

YaFoxHoo? Now that makes some sense…

Posted on February 13, 2008 by JoeDuck

The rumors of a potential offer from News Corp for Yahoo are interesting and CNBC claims they’ll have some new news from news corp in a few minutes, though I’ll be surprised if this is more than rehasing the rumors swirling around that appear more as linkbait for blogs than substantial information.

CNBC is referencing Jessica Vascellaro’s story at WSJ:

The deal would allow Yahoo to remain independent while giving News Corp. substantial control over a huge array of Internet properties and advertising opportunities.

News Corp, already a key internet player because they own Myspace and many Fox properties that have huge online visitation, could leverage the Yahoo aquisition to some advantage, perhaps through monetization optimizing, cross promotion, and such. However I would not want to try to make the case to Murdoch that Yahoo is worth *more* than MS already generous offer. As employees run for the door and the board is more interested in fighting than switching, I’m not clear Yahoo should be playing hard to get right now with anybody.

Disclosure: Long on Yahoo

Yahoo Executives – kudos for true believing, but sell the place anyway!

Posted on February 12, 2008 by JoeDuck

A lot of folks have been very hard on the Yahoo board and Jerry Yang in particular for fighting the Microsoft takeover bid, but it should be noted that almost more than anybody these folks are playing with their own money, and the stakes are huge.

As Fortune reports Jerry Yang’s got more than a few Yahoo shares, and this he’s effectively “gambling” with his own money as he powerfully resists the fat Microsoft offer. If Yahoo stock tanks – as it certainly will if Microsoft backs out – I won’t be all that much worse for the wear but Jerry would be taking something like a *half billion* hit to his net worth. That’s real money, and you’ve got to admire Jerry and the board for believing so strongly in their “new” vision for the company that they are willing to bet they can regain their former glory.

Of course, maybe they *can* regain their former glory, but that’s a bird in the wild and wooly internet bush and Microsoft’s offer is *billions of birds* in the greedy little hands of investors. This is not a tech issue – billions of Microsoft birds in hands are better than a few Yahoo birds in the bushes.

Disclosure: I have some YHOO, though fewer than Jerry Yang.

Hostilities erupt between Yahoo and Microsoft

Posted on February 11, 2008 by JoeDuck

Hey, looks like now it’s an official *hostile takeover* attempt from Microsoft in the battle for the internet giant Yahoo.

Yahoo declined Microsoft’s offer of last week and in this press release Microsoft basically declares their intention to duke it out. I’m surprised they have not upped the ante yet, but perhaps they are waiting for more drama and information before making a “final” offer to the Yahoo board before taking this directly to Yahoo shareholders. Although I think most shareholders would take the MS offer it’s clear the *big* shareholders like Jerry Yang don’t want to, so perhaps Yahoo can win a proxy battle for the company. I have a hunch however that the institutional investors, and the legions of small time folks like me, would jump at a 34+ offer and probably even take the current one unless Yahoo shows a lot more signs of life than screaming out the current rallying cry “We are fighting Microsoft!”

Microsoft PE=16, forward PE=13!

Posted on February 11, 2008 by JoeDuck

Wow. As Yahoo rebuffs them and Microsoft shares continue to take a beating from what appears to be Yahoo aquisition unhappiness, the PE of this mega company is looking nothing short of spectacular. Some would argue that Microsoft is slowly dying due to the massive changes in the way people and businesses use software, but it’s foolish to think Microsoft’s prospects are dim under the current conditions. In my view they are simply making too much money, and remain a key player in a key industry, to deserve this low market valuation.

If the Yahoo merger happens the PE at MSFT will take a hit, but it would clearly remain well under 20, a very modest PE for a company that still has significant growth potential.

But, I guess like other investors I’m a herd animal and fearful, so I won’t be buying MSFT….quite yet.

Disclosure: Long on Yahoo, no Microsoft position.

YaAOLhoo? Are you kidding?

Posted on February 10, 2008 by JoeDuck

The Times of London is, I think, exaggerating a rumor that Yahoo and AOL might merge in an effort to find off the Microsoft takeover of Yahoo. I don’t even think this is necessarily a bad idea if you made sure the management of both companies had the necessary shakeups to turn *both* companies around from what seem like desparate corporate positions. However it just doesn’t ring likely to me at all, and begs the question of how the Yahoo board could make all this work *and* avoid the wrath of the market which probably will view the Microsoft offer as far more favorable than a pie in the sky possible AOL deal. That said, I’m open to this possibility. The main thing I’m *against* is more of the same from Yahoo. Profits and share price matter more than any anti-Microsoft sensibilities, and the board should keep that top of mind at all times.