The Gong Show

Union Square Ventures invested in Tumblr. I’ve said my piece on it there. If you’d like, check out my tumblelog (which is a superset of the content here).

For some nostalgia, I originally wrote about Tumblr after learning about it over dinner with the Iridesco guys. Fun to look back.

There was a lot of great newsworthy questions being tackled today such as:

• Should libraries allow Google, Microsoft to copy and index books for proprietary purposes?
• What will Bush’s response be to California Wildfires?
• Is Apple really worth as much as IBM now? (Market caps are now equal)

But, I’m feeling a little guilty… because in spite of all those meaty questions, there’s only one question on my mind:

What will the lineup be in Denver? Do you play Ortiz at first? If so, where do you put the red-hot Youkilis (“Yooouk!”). Can anyone play short in place of Lugo? How much with the D suffer in that situation?

I really enjoyed Brad Fitzpatrick’s talk about the open social graph today. Brad’s talk was essentially a distilled version of this lengthy piece he wrote two months ago. Rather than retread his entire argument, I want to highlight the juicy bit that really popped for me. If you’re interested in more then you should really read Brad’s original post.

Brad said that decentralization of the social graph is inevitable. Part of his argument was that throughout the history of internet technology, a initial popular idea is developed quickly in a centralized fashion, and then later, a decentralized version is created that is more difficult to build, but often worth the effort.

For example, it used to be that HOSTS files resided on all users computers that mapped names to IP addresses for all the available sites on a network. The file frequently became out of date and had to be updated from a centralized source. This solution wasn’t scalable, and so eventually a much more complicated, decentralized system was built to replace the function of HOSTS files: the DNS system. The DNS system would have been a mess to build from the start in a decentralized fashion, but as networks grew and became interconnected, a decentralized system was essential to support continued growth.

Another example is email networks. In the beginning of email, there were a bunch of small island networks that could only communicate internally. This was due to a centralized message delivery system in each network, which had no awareness or connections to the other networks around it. Eventually, as inter-network email communication became a desired feature, email routing in a decentralized fashion emerged. So, no email server knows the location and destination of every email box in the world, yet users on any email server can send message to users on any other email server. Technology, yet again, trended toward decentralization.

The inevitable march away from centralized network technology towards decentralized solutions is a theme we talk about around the office a lot, and I was glad to see this opinion represented (and well-articulated) at Web 2.0 Summit.

I have seen the FPhone. It had a profound impact on me ;)

It’s not perfect yet, but it’s damn close. Let’s run through Fred’s FPhone checklist:

1 – same form factor as the iPhone – 3″ x 2″ super crisp display [This gets a 3/4 check. It's not as small, but it's pocket-sized]
2 – pull out dual slider keyboard like the Helio Ocean [check!]
3 – no operating system – just a browser, everything happens in the browser [No check on this one, but it does have an incredible browser (better than Apple's browser IMHO... it certainly renders this blog better). Bonus points because the OS is Linux.]
4 – gmail, gcal, gmaps, gsearch, and the web [check, check, check, check, and CHECK!]
5 – flash audio and video [check, check, check!]
6 – data plan only, no voice, and also wifi [1/2 check. Wifi and no voice plan, but no data plan either]
7 – voice delivered via voip (gtalk and skype) integrated with gmail address book [1/4 check... it uses Skype and Gizmo, and even has live video chat... but it's not integrated with the gmail address book]
8 – sold unlocked only, not through any carrier [Check]
9 – a GSM radio – thanks Craig [Fail, but that's ok... it's cheaper without GSM subscription]

The price point is pretty good too: $500. I got a chance to play with this at Web 2.0. It looks great on paper, and it’s even better in person. The battery lasts days… the screen is super crisp… and the browser is 10x faster in rendering than a Curve.

I experimented with some browsing to both AJAX and non-AJAX pages. The browser handled everything I threw at it. I tried Skype (Alex has kind enough to let me bug him at 1 am EST) and the experience exceeded my expectations.

My only complaint is that the keyboard is a little clunky; I type much better and faster on my Crackberry, but I’m sure if I practiced my speed would improve. I should pre-order now.

Here’s Engadget’s coverage with more detailed specs.

I don’t know how readable this picture is, but the gist of it is that Web 2.0 is giving out trees instead of schwag. They’re using Tree-Nation to purchase the trees on behalf of the attendees. I’m really happy about it. The trees are being planted in Niger (which prompted me to learn more about Niger).

Mary Meeker (Morgan Stanley analyst) just spoke on the state of the internet from a financial and secondary-technology perspective. Her slides are very thorough and are mandatory reading for anyone who cares about markets in the IT industry. Note: this link to her slides goes to a 49-page PDF.

I thought the talk by Evan Williams at Web 2.0 was the highlight of the first day. The title of his talk was “Think Less” (pun intended). By “Think Less” Ev means, “What can you take away to make something new?” By reducing the number of features and limiting the abilities of existing features, one can create interesting and desirable results.

At first glance Ev’s theme seems counter-intuitive. If the features of service A are a superset of the features of service B, and the features missing from service B are desirable to a consumer, then, all else being equal, service A should be more popular than service B, right? Wrong.

Why wrong? Ev pointed out (citing Tantek) that:

• Human interface cognitive load is proportional to the number of clicks/keystrokes/gestures
• The usability of an interface is inversely geometrically proportional to its cognitive load

In English? Less features and less options means there’s less to think about… a simpler, paired-down service is easier to use, and “easier to use” means better adoption rates and improved user experience.

A few examples of companies that intentionally simplified or restricted features in order to create a better user experience:

• Fotolog restricted photo uploading to one photo per day (originally due to bandwidth restrictions), but it ended up encouraging users to upload better pictures and created more comments on the existing pictures in the system.
• Facebook restricted registration to only college students (initially).
• Google’s simplified homepage is the classic example of the power of simplicity.
• Of course, Twitter’s 140 character limit.

Every web service I work with could benefit from this lesson. It’s kind of like that trite expression, “Less is more.” Perhaps I should have taken that lesson to heart while writing this post ;)

I’m going to be in SF from Tues through Friday for the Web 2.0 Summit. Drop a line if you’d like to meet up (either at the conference or elsewhere).

USV hosted another Facebook Hackathon tonight. The first hackathon USV hosted was really productive; we learned a lot and met a bunch of talented entrepreneurs. This time around was just as good.

This iteration of the Facebook Hackathon was much more focused on the monetization side of the Facebook App economy. Some monetization-related comments (all paraphrased):

“How many people have a Facebook app? <30 people raise hands> How many people make money on their app? <3 people raise hands> How many people make enough money to cover their New York rent off their Facebook app? <1 person raises his hand>”

“No one is trying something very obvious: applying remnant ad networks to Facebook Aps” [note: this anecdotal comment is contrary to this recent meme about Google’s backdoor into Facebook monetization.

“The going CPA on app installs is $0.50 per install. However, the going rate in the Facebook App M&A market is ~$1.00 per user. So, if you can make an app with almost no churn (which isn’t too hard) then there’s an arbitrage opportunity.”

A big thanks to Michael Galpert for taking the initiative and continuing this group in Amit’s absence. Looking forward to the next one.

Update: While on the subject of monetizing social network inventory, Andrew Chen’s latest post on the subject is mandatory reading. Particularly the section on interest vs intent.