Lost confidence on Yahoo!

I have been a supporter on Yahoo in the GGYY war because
1) I believe the future of search is social search and Yahoo is determined to move to that direction while Google starts very slowly partly because Google is a strong believer of technology while Yahoo has transformed itself to a media company since it hired its current CEO from Hollywood.
2) I believe a media business is more sustainable than a pure technology company. Bill Gates started calling Microsoft a media company since early this year. Even Google shows its conversion by the recent deal of Youtube. There is no surprise that people stay much longer time on Yahoo than on Google. Many people like me using Google as homepage. Everytime I open a browser, Google got one page view. However, I still spend more time on Yahoo since I read news on Yahoo.
3) Yahoo is more smart at buying into web 2.0 companies. Its recent acquisition of flickr, del.icio.us, JumpCut, and others costed less than 100 millions.

However, I have been very disappointed by the cooperation among Yahoo teams. For example, Yahoo recently announced Yahoo Bookmarks. I was excited to give a try. I have been with del.icio.us for a long time and found it starts very difficult to manage the tags. However, I am surprised to find out that how difficult to import my del.icio.us bookmarks into Yahoo Bookmarks. I still had to export a file from del.icio.us to local, upload to Yahoo, and then I was shown an error during the processing and asked me to try again.
I just don't believe both are the same company and the del.icio.us founder is still working at Yahoo HQ campus.
I was thinking that Yahoo stock is a good buy because it has been traded at a very low P/E and it still holds a lot of cash, and the recent rumor that Yahoo might be an acquisition target. Yahoo bookmarks just makes me think it still has some space to fall down.

Silicon Valley is still tech Mecca?

New York Times has an article why Silicon Valley is still the Mecca for technology startups. A VC in NYC obviously has different opinions. And of course, except the VC in NYC has different say, VCs from other states or countries are arguing too. Just Google RANDALL STROSS, the author's name, you will see this article appears in the third and followed by the blog comment from VCs in the other stats. (BTW, it looks like Google crawlers works much harder than before. Soon or later, technorati, so called the real-time web search engine over Google, will have a tough time.)

"A VC in NYC" suggest the author of that article, Randall, who is a professor at San Jose State University to walk out of Silicon Vally to look at the world. But he might forget he was sitting in his NYC apartment writing that blog.

Randall lists many successful startups in Silicon Valley, while "A VC in NYC" appends others outside of Silicon Valley.

Randall is a professor, who is good at playing numbers, has some percentage numbers, like 43% web 2.0 startup in Silicon Valley. "A VC in NYC" has some counter numbers like two of the three top web 2.0 startups are outside of Silicon Valley. If we have all read the book freakonomics, we know everything can be explained by data. (ya, Google also has a rule, every decision should be supported by data.). But it gives me the feeling that "A VC in NYC"'s data are more individual cases, including his argument that there are some lawyers in NYC who are willing to defer legal fees and take equity shares. I trust more on Randall's data. And also, "A VC in NYC" seems not bother to argue 1/3 of ventural capital are in the valley. It might because it is a fact.

"A VC in NYC" ignored the talent, the drivers of the technology. I know MIT has 10,000 alumni in the Silicon Valley, plus Berkeley and Stanford. Silicon Valley attracts and builds the largest talent pool. Every startup starts with team building. There is no better place you can find the right partner through your personal network in the silicon vally quickly. Both authors should have quoted from AnnaLee Saxenian's book on immigration.

The world is going flat but Silicon Valley is the still the tech Mecca.

BTW, remember, I am living in Silicon Valley now. But I have lived in Boston, Europe, and Asia.

Why most of my posts are so short?

Here is the answer.

Following on the story of "CEO doesn't need insurance"

Yesterday I blogged Grasso,ex-chairman of NYSE, received a huge amount of compensation. "Under my blog's influence", today, a New York State judge has decided that Grasso will have to "return tens of millions of dollars" to the New York Stock Exchange.

Web 2.0 fever?!

On HYSTA 2006, John Doerr made a remark that "do less insignificant web 2.0 companies and do more green tech". When asked "how do we, as engineers, to catch the wave of green tech", he answered, "pick up a chemistry textbook and learn it, it is not very complicate to pick up that knowledge." This is the second time I heard from him on pitching green tech. Last time, he was interviewed in an web technology conference and he spent most of his time talking green tech. The interviewer had to push him by saying,"see, most of audience here paid several thousands dollar ticket to hear your opions on the trend of web technology, could you talk more about the internet?".
Well, I understand John Doerr. His boss, Tom Perkins, has explained how VCs work. They pick up an industry, build the buzz words, invest some companies, sell them. When the industry becomes crowded, they move to the next target. Especially for the VC firm as big as KPCB, they have the clout to build the buzz. As stock traders spy on Warren Buffett, a lot of VCs spy on KPCB. When KPCB started the firm as a pioneer venture capitalist firm, it was started having the largest fund in the world, although it had only sevearl millions dollars then.

Anyway, today there is a report on Web 2.0 deal in the first half of 2006 fomr Dow Jones VentureOne. Below are some key observations:

49 Web 2.0 companies have been funded in the first half of 2006, garnering $262.3 million in equity capital. That compares to 51 deals and $199.1 million invested into similar companies in all of 2005, indicating activity is likely to double last year's level.

• While the investment levels are growing, so far the data shows that Web 2.0 is a relatively small portion of the market. For comparison's sake, a total of $13 billion was invested in 1,213 U.S. venture-backed companies in the first half of this year. The deal size remains smaller as well. The median size of a Web 2.0 financing round this year is $4.4 million, compared to $7.5 million for a venture financing overall.
• some 65% of the Web 2.0 deals so far this year have been seed- and first-round deals. Last year, there were even more: 75% of the deals were for these early-stage financings. But in a sign that these companies also are maturing, seven later-stage deals were completed in the first two quarters of 2006. That compares to zero later-stage deals in any of the last three years.
• More than half the companies (25) receiving investments in 2006 were generating revenue, including three which were identified as profitable. None of the financings in 2005 went to profitable companies. Those revenue generating companies also received 61% of the total investment.
• In terms of recent financings, consumer focus appears to be king: the majority of the Web 2.0 rounds funded this year (27) were listed as IT consumer services companies, receiving $165.3 million. This industry segment dominated the Web 2.0 activity last year as well, representing about half of the total 51 deals and garnering $78.3 million of the total capital.
• The most active investors in Web 2.0 this year include Accel Partners, General Catalyst Partners, and Draper Fisher Jurvetson. When compared over a longer period -- since 2001--the most active investors include those three along with Sequoia Capital and Omidyar Network.

My summary: web 2.0 companies could be bootstrapped; the investment might be small because of open source software, the return could be huge, Skype, YouTube?!

Feel spoiled by Silicon Valley

Today I read the article from NY Times that explains how the Paypal alumni network creates so many successful companies like YouTube, Slide, and etc. I also read some people from around the world are complaining they lack resource, either technology or finance, in their countries or cities. Yes, Silicon Valley is great. If you get a cool idea, you can always find some smart guys working with you. If you want some technology know-how, through your network you can always reach some person having that expertise. Guy has said this advantage in a more marketing-person way. Silicon Valley is great is because it is not as hot as Hiwaii, not as cold as New York.
Anyway, after Paypal was acquired, we didn't see any innovation. Mobile payment is a long waiting feature. That's why those energetic Paypal aluni left and started own venture. I am pretty sure as Google becomes bigger, its code becomes aging and difficult to upgrade, its innovation will become slow. It is always easier to draw a more beatiful picture on a white paper than on a highly polluted canvas. Google prefers hiring fresh grads. When Google is slow on innovation, I am pretty sure those guys will quickly becomes Google alumni and change Silicon Valley again. At least, they've got money and talent.

Being an CEO doesn't need insurance.

I am always amazed that Sandy Weil, former CEO of Citi Bank, is listed on the Forbes as one of the richest persons. I also learned that the secretary of former NYSE chairman Dick Grasso could earn around 200,000 a year. But today I still feel shocked that the CEO of United Health Care could get 1.6 billion dollars if he walks away from UHC. 1.6 billion is from his option vest. However, the reason he has to step down is he is involved in the option back dating scandal. It is just bizarre!

technology for developing countries

I am a supporter of developing technology specially for developing countries. I have worked on a project called TEK at school, which is a search engine for developing countries.
Those technologies are just as challenging as any other cutting-edge technologies. Many people have doubted the $100 laptop
Those technologies create just as much values as those created by the x-prize projects. Most cases, those technologies are just more cost effective.(Simple technologies save energy and lifes)
I cheer for this year's Nobel peace prize is given to the microloan Indian banker. I also predict Bill Gates will win Nobel prize in the future.
Here I blog a cheaping computing provided by NComputing, whose technology makes many people can share one computer. It is similar as the mainframe machine connected with many terminals.

I like this picture

shot by option scandal

Today two CEO are forced to leave because of option related scandal. They are CEOs of McAfee and CNet. I think we might expect more like this will happen.

China develops a $200 laptop

From Pacific Epoch

Sichuan Guoxin Technology has recently finished developing its notebook PC Sinomanic, which is based on China's domestically developed CPU Dragon Chip, reports Sina. Guoxin will start a small scale production in January 2007. The laptops target at students and will be priced at 1,998 Yuan each.

Web as a OS? not yet!

I recently start using Google Spreadsheet and first, I was very surprised it can give me similar user experience as the MS Office, like ctrl+C and ctrl+p; But after I use it more, I found Google Spreadsheet is far more surfficient to challenge MS Office.
1) The reason I use Google Spreadsheet is certianly for sharing. However, after I invite my friend to edit, they kept complaining to me on MSN that Google Spreadsheet shows them "It seems you don't have access right to this document". Then after some time, they can see the sheet. After many time, I finally figure out that the reason is because when my friend accessed the sheet, I am still working on it. We two can't edit the sheet at the same time. However, the error message is so confusing. This should be something Google at lease can do. Just let the other user view only while someone is editing the sheet.

2) Sometime Google Spreadsheet gave me errors like "It seems that you have edited this sheet during offline" and gave me two choices, "either discard the offline edit or view only". Again, I don't understand what the second option means.

Beside Google Spreadsheet, I have been using Google personalized home page for a while. I start feeling I am still using My Yahoo. No revolution, Just Buzz!

why my Gmail, Yahoo mail, and hotmail certify my emails for me?

Recently I read an article from WSJ which advise people not to trust any email from financial institution, which is quoted below:

Don't trust email from financial institutions. Email is so easily manipulated by crooks that you simply should never, ever consider any email from a financial institution as legitimate. The message may bear a bank's or a broker's logo, but you should never respond to such an email, and never click on any link it contains.

I feel very sorry for those banks that are trying really hard to convience their customers to swith to paperless statement. I feel very sorry for the trees too.

Stanford researchers have designed a method to provent phishing, which is very simple and "useful"(quoted because I am not sure if it is hackable once it is widely used).

But I wonder, why not my email service providers just certify the those bank email senders for me? GYM(google,yahoo,microsoft) just get the Public Key from Citi Bank, verify the email and tell me this email is authenticated to be secure.

We all know PKI is best and most secure methods and it has been tested for over 2o years. Do you know even RSA patent expired in 2000? The only reason of PKI failure is the difficulty of managing the public keys. It is extremely difficult to ask my hundreds of pals to update my public key after my private key is stolen. However, this should not be a problem for those big players. After so many years competition and consolidation, I guess 90% of people are common customer of GYM, Citi Bank, MNBA, BOA, WM, WF, etc. It should not be difficult for them to manage a PKI.

reflection on SaaS and tadionational software

If we think a web page is a software, then a web site is a SaaS. Why is Saas better than traditional software? well, if I want to use the software, put the url, then I am ready to rock. No go out buy the software or download the software, no CD installation or download installation, no reboot machine, no risk of virus, no upgrade. However, everybody looks at the same thing; everybody follows the same processes, which is embeded into the web site programming. I can't change how it looks and how it runs.

Then there is the trend of personalization. Web site users can change the skin, change some language preference, font preference, and etc. But I still can't change how the website process runs.

I am waiting for the next change. If Gmail doesn't provide a chinese spell checker, I can always plug in a kingSoft chinese spell checker in my gmail. Is it similar as Salesforce AppExchange? I hope their SalesforceOS is based on stardard web service grid, which indicates the age of Software Plug-n-Play.

Simple approach helps NASA solve complex problems

Space shuttle tiles are always the weakest part of the shuttle. It always is the cause of launch delay. It is the cause of the Columbia accident. Now NASA is using a simple way to avoid this problem by just using a long arm camera to enable astronauts check the tiles from inside the shuttle.

Shutterfly goes IPO

Shutterfly, based in Redwood City, Calif., closed at $15.55, up 3.7% from its IPO price of $15. It sold 5.8 million shares at the high point of its expected price range, which was set by underwriter J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Shutterfly operates a Web site where people can upload, share, and order prints of their digital photos. In the first six months of this year, its net revenue rose 34% to $36.5 million, compared with a year earlier, as customers ordered more prints and print-related merchandise like calendars and greeting cards. The company's net loss widened to $3.7 million from $1.3 million as its operating expenses outpaced revenue gains.

I am staying away from this. I think this field is so crowded. I think ofoto has a lot of power on this. Too bad, webshot WAS very good. :)

HYSTA conference 2006
I was very impressed by HYSTA conference 2005 and got to know many great people. This year's conference is even better. I met with old friends and even more important, I knew many new friends as well. HYSTA is very successful at fund raising in the last one year so that this conference could offer many "promotion ticket"(I got a great dinner for free, ya, really good beaf). I think the kudos should go to Jin Yi, who was my old friend at MIT and was the president of the largest engineer entrepreneur club at MIT campus. Now he is director of HYSTA public relationship.
Below are several differences I observed from last year:

• speakers of course are higher profile;
• more audiance from outside of Silicon Valley, LA, middle east, and China;
• more audiance currently have day jobs in China and frequently visit here;
• ya, a lot more lawyers, especially more M&A lawyers
• I personally saw a lot more new faces, many of them have been in Silicon Valley for few months or years ; perhaps all the old faces have gone back China?!
• except engineers, I met people from difference background, even an hollywood actor!

Except HYSTA, I also recommend another two great organizations: SDForum and techdir greenhouse