No Conflict, No Interest

Angel investor Naval Ravikant has a good post on the Venture Hacks blog, focusing on the potential conflicts of interest when an entrepreneur is engaged with an investor.  This is an issue that comes up frequently in my experience, so I think it would be useful to note here.

Naval's post lays out a good framework to think of the issue, and he sums it up by what I think is the key take-away:

Consequently, the best entrepreneurs display a lot of chutzpah.
They aren’t fazed by the competition, nor do they see shadows in
every corner. They are their own biggest competition.

I could not agree more. 

PS. The title of this post is a quote I hear attributed to John Doerr.  I always read it as "where there's no conflict, there's not interest".  I am not sure that it makes sense to me but I figured it makes a catchy post title.

How to Get to Your Minimum Viable Product (MVP)

Derek Sivers is a great blogger, as well as an inspiration to me as an entrepreneur.  And in his latest blog post, he touches on an issue, how one goes about hiring a programmer for an idea they want to bring to life, that I find very important and useful.

I have written about the notion of Minimum Viable Product before and Sivers's post is really the first step towards an MVP.  But he takes it through a great, step by step, simple process and makes it very digestable and actionable.  I get a ton of questions from friends and associates around this issue so now I have a fantastic resource to point them to.

To summarize, here are Derek's steps, but the whole post is worth reading.

1. Reduce your big idea to “Version 1.0”.
2. Write a simple overview of what it does.
3. Write a detailed walk-through of every click.
4. Break it up into milestones.
5. Make your first milestone a stand-alone project.
6. Post it at elance, guru, odesk, vworker.
7. Hire one from each.
8. Continue with the one you like best.

By the way, I fully agree with his steps 7 and 8, even though they will seem reduntant to most people.  The power of a superstar developer is hard to overestimate.

Turkish Broadband Growth

Broadband First, apologies for a quite period on this blog. I have been buried in some new initiatives, which I will share soon.

However, this piece of news that crossed my screen today (via webrazzi) tipped me over to break the silence: 

The Turkish broadband market has reached almost 7.5m subscribers in 1Q2010 and has grown at an amazing 21% rate YoY.  (Source: BTK)

Internet-Rakamları-2010-1

I don't have the time to look it up, but this must be the fastest growth in Europe.  It certainly is the most encouraging news relating to my investment thesis on Turkish internet, since the comScore online engagement news about a year ago.

Broken Email

Email-icon The "email is broken" meme is not new.  I continue to depend on email for the bulk of my professional activity and have done a decent job managing my mailbox relatively effectively, unlike some others, who have declared email bankruptcy (I have no doubt they have significantly more inbound email than I do).  I also subscribe to Fred's assertion that Social Networking has usurped email in lightweight communications.

However, I also think that there is room for creativity and innovation in how email works right now.

Last week, I used email to communicate the launch of a recent investment of mine, Grupanya.  Since email allows for easy personal targeting, I crafted a few different messages for a few distinct audiences.  Then used email to send it out.

The result was appalling.  About 25% of the emails I sent out bounced back.  I do recognize that it's the fact I do a lousy job keeping my address book up-to-date, but with all application intelligence that surrounds us, that should not really be my burden.  There's a ton of data in the cloud that knows my relationships and that data can be turned into an intelligent contact management application.

Plaxo, at one point ,had a legitimate chance at this but they screwed it up by turning themselves into spammers.  Now the most likely candidates are Linkedin and Facebook, but neither really seems focused on this.  I think there lies a huge opportunity.

How to Think About Your VC

I am reading Jeff Bussgang's book and came across a great quote.  If you are an entrepreneur talking to a bunch of VCs and trying to make sense of the process, or trying to decide if you can be partners with that guy across the table from you, I don't think you can go wrong this line of thinking from Twitter's Jack Dorsey:

Is this guy fun to work with? Is he going to challenge us? Is he smart? This person was going to take a seat on the board. I viewed it as a hire that we could never fire.

Is a Single Social Graph Healthy?

Facebook-connect-intro Facebook has made a few very important announcements this week.  It is now clear that they see themselves as a part of the software backbone of the Internet, with a increasingly-dominant sign-on and authorization ability, the new, atomized "like" button, and promising ambitions in the location and payments areas.

And, as Albert Wenger points out, they have executed very well on this very ambitious path, continuing to innocate at scale.

However, there's something I find disturbing in the dominance of any one company, at the core of the internet, which itself, has so far avoided this type of dependence, maybe except in the case of google.  However, Google, in its most dominant search and advertising verticals, does not constitute a single breaking point for the internet.  Take away Google Search, and Yahoo or Microsoft have products that work almost as well.  Take away Google Ads, and… well, nothing maybe.  Probably a massive drop in traffic to many sites and a commercial problem, but the internet works just as well, perhaps better, in providing us with the utility we expect from it.

Conversely, today, nobody else has the social graph data that we now rely on Facebook to provide for us as a web service.  And now many new services are being built on this layer.

If you read this blog, you know that I find the social graph extremely valuable.  I suspect that the single company domination of the social graph is dangerous and may have a stifling effect on the development of value-added services on top of the identity layer.  The strength of the internet has so far been its openness.  Had it been a Microsoft net or an AT&T net, no matter how innovatively executed, the internet would have fallen way short of what it enables today.

What would the alternative be?  If Sun had made the move to own the social graph, it would have been more authentically open. So far, Facebook has been somewhat open, but there are commercial pressures around Facebook that will strongly motivate it to misbehave in its shepherding of the social graph.  I hope that does not happen.

PS. Albert also declares he does not believe in a single social graph.  I actually do. I think the problem he points out is one that can be solved with intelligent search/find and filtering.

iPad First Impressions

Alg_ipad
I got a chance to play around with an iPad yesterday.  I wanted to record my first  impressions, to see if (or rather, how) they will change over time.

  • The screen is awesome.
  • The gestures are a bit more natural for me than the iPhone.
  • It really is a large iTouch.  But "large" makes a huge difference.
  • I wish it were kindle-light.  Not sure that it's as good a substitute for an e-reader.  However, if I'm traveling, I'll probably just grab one device, and naturally, it's the iPad.
  • The lack of a camera is a non-issue, at least in the first version.
  • I recently had a conversation about the differentiated advertising paradigm on an iPad.  I am now more convinced of it.  There will be new ways to advertise/interact with the audience on pads.
  • I wish it were open.  Would speed up development and foster creativity.

I remain convinced that it's a giant leap in UI and user experience. 

Complexity

Clay Shirky does not write very frequently, but when he does, it's often worth paying attention to.  His latest post is no exception.

Sriky is pointing out the changes in the media business and the inability of old media to comprehend them.  He summarizes his point in a fun way:

To pick a couple of examples more or less at random, last year Barry
Diller of IAC said, of content available on the web, “It is not free,
and is not going to be,” Steve Brill of Journalism Online said that
users “just need to get back into the habit of doing so [paying for
content] online”, and Rupert Murdoch of News Corp said “Web users will
have to pay for what they watch and use.”

Diller, Brill, and Murdoch seem be stating a simple fact—we will
have to pay them—but this fact is not in fact a fact. Instead, it is a
choice, one its proponents often decline to spell out in full, because,
spelled out in full, it would read something like this:

“Web users will have to pay for what they watch and use, or else we
will have to stop making content in the costly and complex way we have
grown accustomed to making it. And we don’t know how to do that.”

What Clay Shirky is identifying for the media industry, can be attributed to the Turkish business environment in the broadest sense.  It even includes businesses who were born to the connected economy.

My investments are built on one simple thesis:  That Turkey has lagged
comparable markets in the transition of economic activity to the
connected platforms.  I think there's enormous profit potential in this
situation, if the right exposure is attained.  And part of it comes
from the behavior of incumbents in the Turkish economy. I will be thinking more about specific examples and try to document them in this blog.

The iPad UI Shift

Marc Benioff (of Salesforce.com) has a thought-provoking piece on TechCrunch the future of software, emphasisizing, unsurprisingly, the cloud, and surprisingly, the iPad.

I have not yet seen or used the iPad but i agree with most of Marc's points.  I have stated that I think the iPad is being discounted using the laptop/smartphone paradigm, and that seems to me like a mistake.  The iPad will open new doors to creativity, similar to what Flash, iPhone and Facebook enabled.  And the new form factor will allow for uses not thought of right now.

And the fact that it's an Apple product will allow it to make it past Geoffrey Moore's bowling alley.  Many paradigm shift potentials get stuck there and the iPad will coast past it.  That's the Apple factor.

However, the most interesting part of Benioff's post is this for me:

In 1999, I was obsessed with the question, “Why isn’t all enterprise
software like Amazon.com? And in 2010, the question evolved: “Why isn’t
all enterprise software like Facebook?” This week we will have the
answer to that question in our hands with the iPad. It’s a more
productive, easier, and fun way to work and live. The iPad shows us the
old world is no longer good enough. We’ll need new software with a new
UI.

The last statement I agree with, and am excited about.  And the iPad is a product that certainly makes Benioff's statement possible and credible.