Due terzi compiuti

Pensieri e esperienze di un’anatra selvaggia di ottanta e un anni.

Avram Miller by the sea
EN | IT

587 post pubblicati dal 2006

Categoria: Nuovi media

  • 10 Predictions for the Computer Industry for 2014

    My dear friend, Bob Cringely is a very successful blogger amongst other accomplishments.  You can read his blog qui. He and I often speculate together about the future of technology.  Every year around this time he makes predictions on what will happen in the new year in computer technology.  Often he asks for my ideas, some of which he may incorporate with is own views and some of which he ignores.  This year Bob had to deal with the illness of his mother so he asked his readers for their ideas.  I decided that this year I would write up my own ten predictions which I will of course send to Bob.  I should also say that as a technologist in my core, I often see things happening much earlier that they really happen.  It is sort of the opposite of the sign on your cars side mirror which reads “objects may appear further away then they actually are”.  Here they are in no particular order:

     

     (1)  Bitcoin becomes the MySpace of Crypto-Currency

    I have to confess that I am a bit bewildered about Bitcoin.  On the surface, it is easy enough to understand if you just think of it as just another form of currency like the Dollar, Euro or Yen.  But unlike the Dollar, Euro or Yen, there is no country or countries backing and controlling it.  To really understand Crypto-Currency, one has to have both a pretty good technical background and in particular an understanding of cryptographic, open source and distributed systems.  But one also has to have a pretty deep understanding  of economics and especially money systems.  Frankly, understanding money is a lot harder than most people think.  It kind of reminds me of quantum mechanics.

    At first, I did not take Bitcoin seriously and that in retrospect was wrong.  I actually have friends who have made small fortunes in Bitcoin (I hope none of them accomplished this by starting out with a big fortune).

    I am wondering, like many, about how Bitcoin can become a real currency.  I don’t think it is that yet.  It is more like Gold although a lot easier to use and store.  But until there is a whole supply chain that takes Bitcoin as its primary currency, I think those that that accept Bitcoin for payment must be changing their prices every day to match their preferred currency.  Bitcoin is way too volatile to be used as a main currency. Because a lot of Bitcoin’s are held by speculators, there is incentive drive the value up creating a potential bubble.  We all know what happens to bubbles. Debt is a very important aspect of a successful currency. It is hard to have debt when there is high inflation or volatility.

    There is a lot of concern about the potential for Bitcoin to be manipulated.  There is concern that  it could be hacked.  The mysterious start of Bitcoint by Satoshi Nakamoto (a person or collection of persons) who has since disappeared, causes some to wonder who is really behind Bitcoin.  Now it appears that Marc Andreessen, the technical brains behind Netscape and now very successful venture capitalist, has sort of taken over the leadership of the Bitcoin movement. Anyway, I guess we should be glad its not George Soros.

    Given the early success of Bitcoin, there are many other Crypto-Currencies being created.  The Bitcoin people feel that they can maintain the lead because of their momentum and present dominance.  History proves that this is not always the case.

     

    (2)  iWatch – just in time

    This will be the year that Apple Introduces the iWatch.  I wrote about the iWatch qui. The features that I described are still the ones I expect, but I would place more emphasis on the use of the iWatch for transactions.

    By the way, Apple may introduce a large iPhone and/or a larger iPad.  I don’t think this a game changer so I am not mentioning it here.

     

    (3) Microsoft – Breaking up is hard to do

    Microsoft will finally get a CEO. The primary task of this person will be to breakup the company which will prove very difficult to do because this kind of thing is always difficult to do.  In some cases, parts of the company will become independent companies and trade on the stock market. For instance, I expect that will be the case for the Xbox, while other parts, like Office might be sold to a company like  Oracle.  I think it will take about five years for all the work to be completed.  Expect that Bill Gates will leave the board when the new CEO takes his/her place.

     

    (4) Desktop and Notebooks fall into the black hole of mobile computing

    There is a lot of computing power in smart phones.  Take a look at the iPhone 5s as an example with its 64-bit  CPU.  The power of a mobile computer coupled with the move to Cloud Computing will change the partitioning of computing.

    Look for Apple to bring out a new line of Cinema Displays that will have wireless connectivity with IOS devices.  Imagine that you can walk up to any of these displays and your phone, iWatch or iPad will link to this display.  Applications will be designed to make full use of the display’s real estate.  Blue tooth keyboards and track pads/mice will interface with your IOS device.  All of a sudden you have the full desktop experience that most users know. You will be able to use the full iWorks suite for instance.  It will might be running in the cloud but it will feel, as it does now, that it is running on your “desktop.” This is an extremely important event.  Maybe the most important event of 2014.

    For instance, about two thirds of American have an iPhone. Of course, most of these are not iPhone 5s, but enough are to get things started.  Not all these customers have Macs. In fact most do not.  But most have desktops or notebooks that they will want to replace.  Instead of replacing them, they only have to buy a new Cinema Display.  They can then either use the free iWorks suite or or use the Microsoft Office Cloud service.  Microsoft will have to make sure their apps work well in this environment because the Apple iWorks programs are awesome and are free.  Google will have to do the same.
    So the only customers buying desktops in the future might be those that are heavily involved in using computers to do serious computational work.  Welcome to the Mac Pro and the unannounced Mac Pro Light or the Windows equivalent.

    The same kind of thing will happen with large flat panel displays.  The Apple TV will become an HDMI dongle just like Chromecast. You will be able to easily connect your IOS device to the display just as you can with Airplay now.  Apple will introduce a very powerful gaming environment for IOS that will take advantage of both the A8 64 bit processor in the iPhone but also the motion co-processor to connect with various gaming peripherals.

    Look to 2014 being a very good year for Apple and in particular Apple stock (although I am negative on the stock long term).  The capabilities I described will drive demand for new iPhone and iPad purchases.

     

    (5) Cable TV becomes Cable Internet

    When I first went around to all the cable company CEO’s in 1983 to introduce them to the concept of the cable modem, I told them that they should no longer think of themselves as being Cable Television Companies but rather Cable Communications Companies.  Not all of them got what I meant, but fortunately,  their greed and the fear of the telephone industry helped persuade them to experiment with the idea of using their “cable plant” to allow computers in homes to communicate with the nascent internet.

    Now, the cable industry is experiencing a loss of TV subscribers as young people in particular “cut the cord” and watch TV via the internet.  But they are not really cutting the cord all the way. In particular, if they are at their home they are most likely still connected to the cable company.  Revenue from providing residential broadband has allowed the cable industry to grow in the face of a decline in TV subscribers. This year, Cable Companies will make more money from broadband than from TV. TV is just one attribute of Cable just as Word Processing is no longer a  Device but just an Application.

    However, the Cable Industry has kept a lot of bad habits (like bundling of channels) which make it difficult for new companies to provide Internet based TV.  This is about to change.  But to make it really happen, Cable Companies will want to get a bigger piece of the action. They will want to charge not only for speed but also for quality just as the wireless companies are now doing.  Once this happens, everything will change.  But since this will depend on government regulations, I can not predict exactly when and how this will happen.  As part of this, providers of content can pay directly for the bandwidth.  So if you use Netflix to stream a lot of Video, it will not effect your bill with your cable company. Netflix will pay them for the bandwidth you use when streaming.

    Once the dam breaks, things will change very fast.  This will have negative effects on the cable networks who have relied on having TV channels to be able to make deals for programing. Now if the Internet is used as a medium, there are unlimited “channels”.    Once TV is on the internet, advertising can be done in a much different and more targeted way.  This will also weaken the Networks that rely on advertising.  As the Networks see major declines in their profits, they will be able to invest less and less, leading to a quickening of their demise.

    We will continue to see changes in consumer viewing habits. Not only will consumers see what they want when they want but they will see it with the people they want no matter where in the world they will be.  I hope to say more about this in a few weeks when a company I both advise and have invested in leaves stealth mode.

     

    (6) Facebook – the AOL of Social Media

    Facebook is a company I am negative on even thought I use it every day.  Clearly it is the dominate company on the social media stage but I don’t think for long.  There are a number of factors that will effect their standing.  The first is demographic. Young people that first created the market for Facebook are either moving off the Facebook Platform or never getting on.  They don’t want to be on a social media site that they share with their parents and grandparents.  Also much of the growth of Facebook as been outside the USA and in developing countries.

    I suspect that while these numbers add to Facebook’s population, they don’t do much for the bottom line.

     

    Equally as important is that Facebook’s users don’t really like the company.  They might like using Facebook because it connects them with their friends but they don’t like the confusing interface, constant changes in privacy and the sense that Facebook is exploiting them.

    Young people are moving to social media sites that are more mobile oriented like Tango, Talk Plus, Line and WeChat. Then there is SnapChat the opposite of a “time line”.

    Facebook has a market capitalization of $135 billion dollars but made less than a billion dollars on the sale of more than $5 billion dollars.  It recently spent a billion dollars to by zero revenue buy acquiring Instagram.  Facebook is trading at 90 times estimated earnings.  For Facebook to justify its stock price it will be forced to find more ways to monetize its traffic and most of those ways will turn off their users.  Actually, the only hope for Facebook will be discovering life on another planet.

     

    (7) Amazon buys Netflix and finally has to pay California Sales Tax

    Amazon intends to be one of the major media distribution companies in the “new order.”  They are already following in Apple’s footsteps using Amazon Prime to distribute Media.  Now they are imitating Netflix with original programming.  Netflix has House of Cards which is a drama about a bunch of smart but corrupt politicians.  Amazon has Alpha House which is a comedy about four moronic politicians living together in a house in Washington DC.  Given that these guys are idiots, it might be better to describe it as a documentary.  House of Cards was a major hit and won an Emmy.  Alpha House is pretty much a dud. Netflix redefined viewing habits and created the concept of Binge Viewing while Amazon has had little impact on viewing habits of consumers.

    Netflix is, in a sense, the worlds largest “cable” operator.  It reaches more people than HBO.  Most devices and most modern TV’s can receive Netflix.  Bezos is going to finally figure out that he can not catch up.  And he will not want to see Netflix in the hands of some other company.  Netflix was really cheap a year ago when it traded at about $90.  It is now just a bit south of $350 dollars.  Its total market cap is about $22 billion. While Amazon has done well going from $245 to $405 and has a market cap of $182 billion this is nothing compared to the movement in Netflix’s stock price.  Netflix must now feel comfortable with their current price because they have recently removed a Poison Pill provision making it much easier for someone to accumulate large amounts of their stock.  This will push the stock up even further so the sooner Amazon moves to acquire Netflix, the better.  Of course, Bezos hates paying state sales tax which Netflix does.  Maybe this is what is slowing him down.

     

    (8) Internet of My Favorite Things

    Everything is going to be connected to everything.  It is going to be a wild ride.  I already have light bulbs that are connected to the cloud. My car is connected to the cloud. I wear exercises devices that connect to the cloud. My piano is connected to the cloud.  I could even jam with musicians. It will be like the wild west all over again.

    But then again, I am waiting for the hackers to take over cars, cause washing machines to destroy clothes and of course stream videos of us in our pajamas.  And then there are the personal Drones!

     

    (9) Google Glass joins the other zero billion dollar business that Google has launched 

    If you read my blog often, you will know that I am not too fond of Google.  I refer to Google as the Microsoft of 21st century. Of course they have done some amazing things but much of what they do is mediocre.  For me, throwing a bunch of spaghetti against the wall and seeing what sticks is not a business strategy.  I do understand that many of you will disagree with my point of view.

    I know something about the ‘glass’ application. In fact, I know a great deal. I have been working in this area for over ten years.  They company I have been involved with most recently is Innovega.  We have the real deal but it takes both glasses and contact lenses to really work, so it’s not for everyone. But I know that Google Glass is probably for a lot fewer people.

    I think it is a silly idea that has very limited long term prospects.  Not because I do not believe in the concept.  It is because I do not believe in the implementation.  I joke (partly) that when Larry Page became CEO he tried to figure out how to get Sergy out of his hair.  Sergy came to him with the idea of Google Glass – which may have started when Innovega paid a visit to Google.  Larry said to Sergy “this is so important that you should spend all your time and energy on it.” It was probably worth spending a few billion dollars for Larry to no longer have to share an office with his co-founder.

     

    (10) Foundry or Floundery

    Finally I have to mention my former company, Intel, where I was Vice President of Business Development until I left in 1999.  Intel has a great deal of excess semi conductor manufacturing capacity.  It  is perishable – if it is not used it just goes to waste.  We used to say that when we designed a new factory, the first chip it produced cost a couple of billion dollars and the ones after that just a few dollars.  Factories have very high fixed costs.  They are like airplanes or hotels, you want to fill every seat and every bed.

    Apple needs Intel to build its A processors.  For obvious reasons, it no longer wants to have Samsung build its chips.  So it probably has put a “gun to Intels head” and said that they will design out the Intel microprocessors in the Mac line if Intel does not start doing foundering work for Apple.  And Google is threatening Intel with developing its own line of server processors if Intel does not start making chips for Google.

    Intel will remain the top semi conductor company in the world, but that is like owning the best house in the worst neighborhood.

    As most of you know, Intel missed the transition to mobile but frankly even if they had made the transition, there was no way the company could continue to have the margins they enjoyed during the PC phase of computing when Microsoft and Intel earned more than 120% of the profit of the industry (this was possible because so many other companies lost money.)   It takes a long time to develop and build new factoriess to take advantage of new semi conductor manufacturing and design technology.  Intel was used to growth and building out capacity to intersect that growth.  In the 90s I was often quoted as saying that “Intel had to build factories to manufacture products that were not yet designed to serve markets that were not yet created.” That was true then and it is true now, but now the products will not be Intel’s.

     

    Please feel free to comment and make your own predictions.  And don’t forget to check Bob’s blog.

     

  • Time to Channel Steve

    Screen Shot 2013-04-24 at 12.26.03 PM

    As a reader of this blog, you probably know that Apple stock has lost almost 40% of it value from a high of $705 to low of $409, as of this morning.  In just seven short months Apple has gone from the “wonder company” which might have become the first company with a trillion dollar market cap to a “dog”.  Tim Cook went from sucessor of Steve Jobs to an Apple version of Steve Balmer.  At the earning announcement yesterday, Apple reported a down earnings  quarter year over year for the first time in a decade.  iPhone sales are now having single digit growth.  Apple is entering the replacement phase of their  business.  What was worse, there was no indication of new products to the fall and nothing about a new breakout category.  Rather, Apple said it would buy back its stock and double its dividend and thereby demonstrated that do not have better ideas for their cash like acquiring Dropbox and/or Netflix.
    What went wrong.  Apple had been growing by creating new categories of computing from the iPod, iPhone and iPad. They were brilliant at design and marketing of these products.  The combination of their increased buying power coupled with the benifit of Moore’s law allowed them to make significant improvements in these products but all good things come to an end.  For instance, how many pixels do you need on a phone?  The answer is clearly no more than you can see.  In the meantime, the double edge sword of Moores law, means that it is easier for competitors to catch up from a lower price point.  As products come to market from companies like Samsung that have similar capabilities but at much lower price points,  new years especially in price point sensitive geographies  start buying these products. Apple can not easily reduce price without having a major effect on their margins.  They want to keep the margins up feel that they can hold onto most of their customers because of the high cost of switching out.  Cook thought he could grow the company by explaining in new markets but that is turning out to be harder than he probably thought.
    Apple’s strength has been in integration of devices but many young people only have one device.  And more and more, applications are moving to the cloud.  I use to tell Andy Grove that Intel’s competition was not AMD but it was bigger screen monitors.  He never got that by the way.  Right now there are many companies chipping away at Apple in areas that Apple does not really pay attention to. For instance Dropbox.  Apple is bit particularly talented in network technologies.  The real sleep here is probably Amazon.   The cloud will have impact on iTunes.  Why own music when you can subscribe to Spotify.
    Steve Jobs was not only the composer of Apple’s success but he was also the conductor who had an excellent sense of time.  Steve would tell everyone inside and outside of Apple that Apple would not do certain things (“we will never develop a phone”) only to reverse himself later either because he changed his mind or he just was trying to manage company priorities.  After Steve died, the company continued to work on the things Steve said to do but no one was able to work on the things Steve said not to do.  That is why it may be necessary for Apple to Channel Steve to get permission to go against some positions he took.
    It was reported that Jobs figured out what to do with the TV causing lots speculation about a true Apple TV.  I have always had might doubts about this.  It just did not make sense.  I have spent months trying to figure out what if anything Apple could do to do to TV what it did to the cellular phone.  Well I finally figured it out but I realize that Apple is no longer capable of making it happen.
    If there heaven  and Steve Jobs is there, I can imagine that he is looking down on Apple and trying to figure out how to change the channel.
  • Facebook: Mixed feelings about Facebook and some views on the IPO.

    Mediocrity and Technology
    I have been thinking a lot about mediocrity recently.  This is probably driven by the election cycle.  Recently, I said “Google had the mediocrity of Microsoft without the greed of Bill Gates”.  Google and Microsoft prove that you can produce mediocre products and services if you manage either through luck or effort to dominate your segment.  I think we can add Facebook to that list now.  With the billions it raised in its recent IPO, Facebook has the ability to maintain its position and buy up any challengers.

    I have mixed Feelings about Facebook
    I use Facebook almost every day.  I have 950 “friends” down for 1000 and hope to reduce this to about 500.  I have uploaded  375 photos and have 208 “likes”.  I post status almost every day and try to post things that are interesting and/or funny.  It even appears that I have a Facebook following.

    The concept of a Social Network is a very powerful idea.  Frankly, while I was aware of this concept (see post about  Geocities), I did not really understand the power of it.  As far back as the early 90s, I was pretty sure that much of the content on the internet would be created by the “audience”  but  I did not realize that this kind of “conversation” would play such a profound role.

    Many may disagree with me, but I think Facebook is an example of recognizing an opportunity and pursuing it with focus and passion at just the right moment in time.  Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg remind me of Microsoft and Bill Gates.  Both companies have dominated a major part of the computer ecosystem with mediocre products. Zuckerberg, whom I have never met (I think he was probably 16 years old when I left Intel in 1999) reminds me of Gates. Both men understood the their opportunity and would stop at nothing to achieve it including diminishing the role of their co founders.  Neither of these founders cared much for their customers nor took much pride in there products  And neither of them had a sense of design.  It is rumored that Zuckerberg wants to model himself after Steve Jobs.  Zuckerberg is no Steve Jobs.

    For years, I suffered using Windows on my PC. Now, I  am Apple based and Microsoft Free. I am hoping that I will have the similar experience and something will come along to replace Facebook.  Too bad Google is so mediocre or Google + could have done that.

    Now for the IPO
    It has been interesting observing the Facebook IPO.  I never thought that Facebook would be able to go public because of all the law suits I suspected would come out against Zuckerberg.  I guess there were less of these than I thought or people were bought off prior to the IPO.  The IPO was clearly miss managed.  But managing an IPO is very difficult when the company is “hot”.  If you set the price low and do not offer a lot of stock (float), the stock will trade up and people will say the company left money on the table while the Investment Banker’s friends made out.  If you do as Facebook did and raise the price an the number of shares, you the disappointment in the market. By the way, these are what one calls “high class problems”.

    One of the crazy things about this IPO was the amount of stock already out in private hands.  And then the crazy way restricted stock options vested liquidity.

    Also, there were a lot of short sellers on the day of the IPO which is not suppose to happen.

    My experience with an IPO gone bad
    I have had some experience with an IPO gone wrong.  I was on the board of World Online when the company went public on March 17,2000.  World Online was the dominant Internet company in Holland.  The IPO was the biggest ever for the Netherlands Stock Exchange and the biggest IPO for a European Tech Company.  ABN AMRO and Goldman Sachs were the key underwriters.

    We went public at 43 euro’s and the stock traded up briefly to 50 euros. The stock was 12 times oversubscribed.  That was the reason that the underwriters had recommended to the board that we price at the highest level we had indicated and make a full allotment of stock.  Frankly, what could the board do other than follow that recommendation. In fact on the London Grey market the night before the stock was trading at 72 Euros.

    By the end of the first day the stock was back at the 43 euro opening price and would have been lower had the underwriters not been trying to stabilize  the stock.  On its second day of trading, WOL tumbled 16% below its listing price. By March 22 the stock was trading at 31 euro.  The stock continued to fall over the next days; its value plunging from 12 billion Euro to 5 billion in a week.  There were a lot of factors for the decline of the stock.  Some of these are similar to the Facebook situation.  For instance a lot of stock was bought by people who were speculating on the stock appreciating substantially.  When this did not happen, they unloaded quickly driving the price down fast.  Many of the speculators were afraid they would not get enough stock so they place extra orders creating the sense of more demand then was actual.  Some individuals and companies that owned stock and were not subject to lock up’s began to unload.  Information was put out to further drive down the stock.  In particular information that had not  been clearly disclosed in the prospectus about a previous sale by the CEO, Nina Brink, was cited as a reason for the stock decline.   Probably the most important factor was the overall decline of technology stocks (the bubble) which started on March 10, 2000, just a week before the World Online offering.   On Sept. 7th, 2000, we sold World Online to Tiscali a major Italian Internet Provider.  I remember spending the very early morning selling my shares for about 7 euro a share.  I can’t complain because I still did very well personally although obviously not as well as I would have at 50 euro.

  • The American System of Greed: How the smart and greedy take advantage of the greedy who take advantage of the dumb and greedy

    I have posted several times regarding my negative views of the financial value of Facebook.  As you may know, Goldman Sachs put together a “fund” to invest $500 in Facebook at a valuation of 50 billion.  This structure lets Facebook get around the requirements of going public by having more than 500 investors.  Goldman is well know for having creative ways to get around regulations.  Just look at how they helped Greece hide much of their debt.  But the deal also lets Goldman get even more money then they would get if they just sold stock.  They are getting a 4.5% placement payment, a 4% carried interest (they get 4% of any gain in Facebook stock over the 50  billion dollars) and they get a 1.5% a year management fee.  Now who did they sell the stock to?  To a bunch of greedy people who do not really care what Facebook is worth but think that there are greedy and  stupid people that will buy Facebook at the IPO for 100 billion dollars.  There are probably terms that will allow the Goldman investors to sell into the IPO or soon after or Goldman will find away to lock in their gains (and Goldman 4% carry interest). Then all the people that have Facebook at low valuations will start dumping their stock.  That will not hurt Goldman who will have probably sold Facebook short.  I have seen this movie before.  It will be ugly.

  • Rob Glaser steps down: The end of an era

    Rob Glaser steps down. I have known Rob since in 1992 when we was leading Microsoft’s multimedia business and I was VP of business development at Intel and tasked amongst other things with working with Microsoft and Rob to develop a number of consumer initiatives.  One of these was the interactive set top box which still has not really happened but that project ultimately lead to the the development of the cable modem albeit without Microsoft participation.  I was sorry when Microsoft removed Rob from his position but it ended up being a great thing for Rob who ended up leaving Microsoft and starting Real Networks.  I found Rob very smart, articulate and driven but not an easy man to work with.  I learned a lot from him in those early days of the Internet.  Rob has also been a carrying and responsible person that has contributed much through charity and political work.

    What ever you think of Real Networks (I love using its Rhapsody service myself) and what ever you think of Rob, we owe him much as one of the true pioneers of the Internet.  Rob was one of the few (I count myself in this small list) that in the early 90’s understood the power of the Internet and how it would transform traditional media.   Thanks Rob.

  • I am not a collector

    About 30 years ago, I bought my first painting. As a musician (sort of) I was always puzzled about visual art where one copy of a work exists or in the case of photos and prints, as small series. With music, the more people that have a copy of a work, the more successful one is. But with visual art, success is kind of linked to the resale value of a work (and positive critical review). People that acquire visual art are called collectors. But people with a large library of music are generally known as music lovers. Visual art takes up a lot of room. Music takes up very little room and now with digital distribution it takes up no room (I am a big fan of Rhapsody). I once visited the home of a senior executive at a major media company. This man was an art collector. His house was filled with wonderful and very valuable art. I told him that I had been buying art but there were almost no suitable wall space left in my house. I asked him what he did when he got in that situation and he said, “it is easy, you just buy a bigger house”. Over the years I bought more art. I did not know and still do not know much about art or artists. I just bought pieces I loved but also integrated well within the space I had for them. Being the businessman that I was, I always gave some thought for the value of the art that I bought and have been good at negotiating discounts from art dealers who normally have a very high mark up. My wife (I can’t mention her name because her goal is to be the last person you cannot find via Google), loves visual art at lot and actually as a graduate of an art school, knows a lot about it. So we sometimes visit galleries. About four years ago, we randomly walked by a gallery in Chelsea NYC, and I saw a piece that really drew me to it. It was “The Flood” by Barry Frydlender.The Flood Not only did I love it but I was fascinated to learn about how Frydlender created it using hundreds of digital images taken from the same place at different times. I did not realize that you could actually create art with Photoshop. I bought that this piece for what I thought was a lot of money but since then Frydlender has gotten a lot of recognition including a show at the MOMA in NYC. His work has gone up a lot in value and I would not feel comfortable spending that kind of money for art now. I ended up over the years buy three more works of Israeli photographers. Recently, I was asked if I would lend these four works to the Magnes Museum for as six month show they were putting on of Israeli artists in celebration of the 60th anniversary of Israel. I agreed of course having had some guilt for a while that so few people could actually see the art that I own. My wife and I went to the opening of this show and then to a reception. People kept coming up to us and saying, “when did you start becoming a collector” or things like that. I guess it was meant as a compliment. Being a collector must be some kind of status symbol. I wanted to scream “I am not a collector” and run. I guess when anything is in a limited supply those that buy these items an be called collectors. But what about the digital word. I have a friend (btw he is almost 70 year old). He discovered bit torrent and how you download music and videos for the net for free (pirate). He has been building up a vast library of films and feeling hard disk after hard disk with them. Would he be called a collector of films? At the same show where my photos are being shown is an Israeli performance arts named Sigalit Landau. Her work is recorded and sold on DVD. I loved this work which I saw briefly at a lecture at the opening. So I looked it up and it is sold as an addition of nine. That means there are only nine DVD’s. Obviously, if you make nine you can make nine hundred or nine thousand. It makes some sense that there might be a limit on the productions of various visual art works that actually have a physical component. For instance, “The Flood” is a very big piece and hard and expensive to reproduce. But limiting the production of a DVD is totally artificial. The buyer is paying for scarcity. The buyer is paying so that someone else cannot have the work. I wonder how long this business model will last. Yes, Sigalit needs to earn money or her work but what will keep someone from ripping the DVD and putting it up on the Net. So will Sigalit who often performs in the nude have to look or advertising as away to earn money. Will we see her up on YouTube with an add across her naked body? What will be the business model or art when art is digital? And what will happen to the collectors

  • If you want an audience jump out of a building.

     I think it was around 1996 that I declared that Advertising was the Killer App. of the Internet at presentation I made at the National Association of Broadcasters.  I still believe that although, in reality people to people communication is the killer application and advertising is just the way must companies try to monetize that (I emphases “try”).  But because you have an audience, it does not mean you can effectively advertise.  Just stand on the ledge of a building and threaten to jump.  You will soon have a large audience but even if you were a logo’ed shirt, you will have a hard time turning this into an opportunity to make money.  And such is the problem of MySpace (which I don’t really care for) and Facebook (which I really like).  Effective advertising on the internet is a challenge for most.  It works well for search as has been demonstrated by Google but that is direct response advertising.  Brand advertising is even a greater challenge to this new medium.  Heavy does a great job (I am on the board and this post is not really about plugging heavy)  but  that is helped because the company is provides short form entertainment content.  I believe that social networks can make money of course with advertising, just not the kind of money that would justify the prices that have and will probably be paid for their stock.  But then again I said that about Google.

  • Video and me

    In 1966, when I was working on bio feedback (brain waves), my friend and colleague, Peter Harris, and I got the idea (actually I think it was Peter that had the idea) to see if we could put up letters on a screen.  At that time we use an ASR-33 teletype as are main input and output device (think of a kind of typewriter if you can remember them).  We had never seen a character on a screen.  In fact we had no screens on the computer.  What we did have was a telescope that could store images using a long lasting phosphor and we had digital to analog converters (which I think I designed and installed).  Bottom line was we figured out how to put up words on the screen (which was a round little thing) and it was amazing. 

    In 1970, I used head per track disk which probably had less than a Meg of memory and which was developed for instant repay for sporting events, to put up whole pages on TV sets which were used by nurse to monitor patients in an ICU.  We developed some kind of character generator to take our ASCII codes and turn them into a small bit map that could be loaded on the disk. 

    In 1975 when I ran a division of Mennen Greatbatch which was responsible for computer supported medial systems, I used a PDP-11 and developed a dual access memory unit which could be read be a raster scanner that created a display.  There was one bit in memory for every bit on the display.  We developed software character generators.  It worked pretty well. 

    In 1981, when I was Group Manger for Professional Computers at Digital Equipment, I had my group develop a shared memory display because it lets us have software created characters. It was a big fight inside Digital because every one else wanted to use hardware generated characters.   

    In 1989, after I had started what became Intel Capital I invested in a company called Digital F/X which was founded by my good friend, Steve Mayer, who was the co founder of Atari.  He wanted to bring to the desk top advanced post production capabilities especially special effects.  Apple invested in the company as did KP.  I got Intel to invest because I had and idea to develop a graphical user interface let the MAC which would be connected to the chips we would develop.  We would put a layer of software between above OS so the OS would sit between two environments that Intel would develop together. But Andy Grove shot that down.  I got so pissed off I sent him a memo calling him the Mick Jagger of the computer world (trying to make today last).  Did not help my career very much. 

    In the very early 90’s I continued my interest in displays but now the challenge was video.  I thought that we could find ways to put video on PC’s but other than for educational training most people at Intel thought that was a stupid idea.  But thank God for
    Moore’s law because we began to get the computing power we needed to play back encoded video. 
     

    In 1993, Matt Miller (CTO of GI) and I realized that we could use the cable network to provide a high speed network to PC’s in homes.  And the cable modem as we now know it was born.  I thought that video would be a key capability and we demonstrated video downloaded to a computer over a cable network at the Western Cable Show in 1993 and later at the 1994 PC Expo (and of course it was Andy Grove who did the demo).   

    In 1996, Intel and Creative Artist Agency (CAA) put together a “demo lab” to showcase the PC and broadband internet as the beginning of a new medium.  We though mistakenly that the content for this new medium would come from the traditional media industry especially the talent.  This turned out not to be the case but I did make a lot of interesting contacts in the media industry. 

    In 1998, I joined the board of King World Productions which was the leading syndicate of first run TV shows.  For instance we distributed Oprah.  I was asked to join the board by Herb Allen (Allen&Co) to help the company understand the implications of the changes in technology and help develop a long term strategy.  Soon after I joined, I realized that in a few years it would be possible to encoded TV quality video on a PC and I figured people would store TV shows to view later and would skip the commercials.  This was around the time that Tivo and Replay both came to market.  Since the TV affiliates that represented the build of King Worlds customers were totally dependent on advertising, I thought it was wiser to sell the company than to try to build it our further.  We sold it for three billion dollars to CBS who shortly later was acquired by Viacom.   

    In 1999 I invested in Heavy, the leader in broadband entertainment for males 18-34.  We started with animation and small video windows short form.   

    2007, I am glad to say that Heavy is doing very well and is probably the leading independent video site on the net.  And we now have internet video on multiple platforms including cell phones.  

    So for me it has been 40 years since Pete Harris and I put those first bits on the screen and spelled out the word “test”.  We have clearly made so much progress in developing the technology to create and distribute video content.  But I am still wondering about how the really interesting an compelling content will be greated.  Soon the novelty of having video everywhere will fade. 

  • Joost: The Entrepreneur as a Brand

    Joost, an internet video distribution site has gain an amazing amount of attention. Recently it raised more than 45 million dollars and has a valuation close to 200 million.  Joost is in a closed beta (I have been using it for a while).  The company owns no content, wires or towers. I doubt (but do not know) that it really has any technical advantages.  So then why are companies like Viacom and CBS signing on? It is the power of the Entrepreneurs brand.  Niklas Zennstrøm e Janus Friis are the founders of Skype and before that Kaaza. We have always had strong CEO/Founder brands like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Andy Grove but they stayed with the companies they started.  These guys build and sell companies.  And while there are so many video distributions sites, they will not make it with out great content and consumer awareness.  These are the guys that have the “juice” And in any case, see if you can get a beta.  Joost is certainly an example of a 21st media company and while companies like this may or may not succeed in getting a return for their investors (this one will if history is any indication), they will further break the back of traditional TV networks.  Heavy, on whose board I serve is on Joost and their programs look great. 

    By the way, last week, Roger King, was honored by The International Radio and Television Society Foundation.   Roger is the CEO of King World Productions and CBS Enterprises.  King World is the leading distributor of syndicated television and distributes such shows as Oprah. King world started by distributing The Little Rascals.   I was on the board of that company when we sold it to CBS in 1999 for 2.5 billion dollars.   

  • The 1849 Gold Rush and the Internet Bubble

    Mike Hirshland sent me a story on Valley Wag about Industry Standard pre burst (that is post bubble). It is interesting and you can read it qui. It caused me to reflect on another time in this history of the bay area, the 1949 Gold Rush. Here can read about that qui if you do not remember the stories (which are great). Gold was discovered in 1849 North of SF. Sailors abandoned their “secure” jobs to go prospect for Gold. Boats where abandoned in the bay. Well most of the people trying to prospect for gold made nothing but there was a clear group of people that sold provisions and tools to these people for a while. Some of them made real money and some of them like Sutro invested that money into land in SF (which became a very large city at the time). Even members of my family arrive in 1872 to sell leather goods, tobacco and clothing but they were not as smart as Levi Strauss. My family is still in SF by the way and I even have a great great grandfather buried here. So out of the chaos of the gold rush came a real city with a real economy. Thank God for greed or I might have been born in the Ukraine (which was not the best place at the time to bring up a Jewish boy).