Industry

Dave Winer's Geek Dinner for Scoble

Robert W. Anderson — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:49:00 GMT

You can find this post, and more, on my new blog here.

Last night, Dan and I went to the geek dinner Dave Winer hosted for Robert Scoble. While I've been to many parties and dinners full of geeks, this was my first "geek dinner."

There was an interesting mix of people: entrepreneurs from Web 2.0 startups, various software developers, many bloggers, and other assorted geeks.

The highlight of the evening for me was the discussion that started just before the restaurant closed. We adjourned to the parking lot to continue until it became too cold and too late (although, apparently Robert and Steve Gillmor kept it going for another hour and a half, see Geek dinner Gillmortastic). It was a little challenging to get Steve Gillmor's entire point , although I guess Robert finally got it after we all left.

The conversation was, I think, a typical one: why Microsoft doesn't get Web 2.0 (i.e., how Google will beat Microsoft). Steve Gillmor has some pretty strong views about the mind share that Google has regarding applications. Yet he believes that Office will lose (or has lost) the battle. It appears that he wants to see AJAX-enabled interfaces to everything. All browser-based, all thin-client.

I think the major point of disagreement between Gillmor and many others in the crowd had to do with the utility of browser-based software models. For example:

Gillmor wants to do all of his RSS reading on the Web. I don't. I prefer a model with the advantages of a smart client (rich UI and disconnected operation) that also allows me a surely Web-based interface. Newsgator is a perfect example of this. Both Robert and I use NewsGator in Outlook and from the Web. I also use it from my WM5 device. Even better, they are all synchronized.
Gillmor wants to write all his articles in e-mail. He said something to the effect of "e-mail will supplant the use of Word in the next six months". This comment nearly resulted in a wager. I believe he is talking about a very small group of technologically-savvy early-adopters.

If Gillmor prefers Web-only, then more power to him. And he is right, there are many like him who feel the same way. But there are also a huge number of people (and these are not just corporate users) that prefer the installed-software model.

Google has enjoyed a great deal of popularity as an answer to Microsoft's dominance. They have a stockpile of goodwill and trust from people simply because they are not Microsoft. This is not permanent. The bigger they get, the more profitable they are (if that's possible), the more people they piss with their own kind of over-reaching, the more this is going to wane.

And Microsoft is not standing still. Certainly, they're concerned about Google (and I hope more concerned about supporting different models of user interaction than just Google). Next year is going to be a big year for Microsoft. I am not ready to count them out of this "Web 2.0" market.

Acquisition Criteria

Robert W. Anderson — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 11:58:00 GMT

Robert Scoble posted some things he would consider when evaluating an acquiring company. I read his post with interest as in the past I was actively involved in the sale of a company I cofounded.

He asks if anyone else has any good advice for entrepreneurs considering a sale.

Here’s mine – I’m sure this isn’t complete, but it is a start:

The deal makes financial sense to all of the existing owners (not just to the entrepreneur). Sometimes deals are put together that are attractive to the entrepreneur while attempting to cut out the other investors. Avoid this if at all possible. If the ethics don’t bother you, think of it as self-preservation: you may need those investors again even if just as a reference. After all, this probably won’t be your last start up and it means a lot to say that you made money for your investors.
What are they buying: branding, company, people, product, technology, market share or entrée, credibility? Make sure that you agree with them about what they are buying. Which products are important? Which technologies are important?
The deal makes financial sense to the buyer. People tend to ignore this (and maybe you should if Robert Scoble is buying you). I think this is important in understanding why they are buying you.
What is the plan for the company once it is acquired? What numbers are you supposed to hit? What kind of money can you spend?
What will happen if things go sour?
Ask for examples of unsuccessful acquisitions – what happened to those people / products / technologies? How were those people treated?
Make sure that there are committed-to budgets post-acquisition. Also, keep reinforcing that the numbers need to be trued up based on the acquisition closed date. One VC told us recently that she is seeing people state their numbers by “months after funding” instead of fixed dates. I call this out because our acquisition took 2 months longer than it was supposed to (and the numbers needed to be trued up several times). These numbers are often tied to management / group bonuses, so you don’t want their to be confusion about this.
What kind of approval processes will be in place?
How will they judge this a successful acquisition?
Is the acquisition popular in the acquiring company? Will you be competing with others in the company?
Finally, will you want to work there? Will you want to work with your new boss? In the group in which you are placed?

My motivation for some of these questions comes from my own experience. For example, we were bought to give credibility in a new market as well as to infuse our entrepreneurial spirit across the greater company to affect more ASP-related business. We had a brand, products, and credibility that supported the acquisition. But when it came down to it, we were bought by a “numbers” company. What mattered more than anything else was that we hit our revenue targets. Strangely enough, receipts, costs, and cash, didn’t really matter. Just revenues.

That said, our acquisition was a success by the most important measure: that company (Energy Interactive) and the core personnel (outside of the founding executives) continues to this day as a somewhat independent group, selling the same / similar products into the same industry.

Now, I don’t mean to imply by any of my suggestions that I believe that these criteria particularly apply to Microsoft; however, I do think it is a good thing for the entrepreneur to investigate these (and many other) issues when evaluating an acquisition.

My interview with DOC | HOLLADAY

Robert W. Anderson — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 02:17:00 GMT

I talked with David Holladay at PDC05 (i.e., DOC | HOLLADAY). Today he published the interview here.

I talk a bit about what Digipede does and what makes our product different from other Grid offerings out there. I also talk a little bit about the background of my team and what got us interested in this market space. At least I think that is what talked about -- I haven't watched the interview myself!

From MTC to eScience

Robert W. Anderson — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 16:24:00 GMT

Dan blogged that he would rarely post this week because of our work at the MTC in Mountain View. Boy, was he right -- it has been pretty consuming. So, I've been quiet too.

We'll be heading up to the MS Research eScience event next week. I'll be blogging about that soon enough. If you'll be up there, contact me. It'll be a whirlwind trip for me, but it looks like there is a bit of “meeting“ time in the schedule.

Hope to see you there!

Microsoft done for?

Robert W. Anderson — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 20:02:00 GMT

Robert Scoble is spending a bit of time refuting this point. The latest post is here where he refers to responses to the current company meeting. He is in a good position to refute these claims as he has a broad view of what products are coming at Microsoft.

I do find the premise that “Microsoft is done for” a bit naive. I'm sure people have reason to be skeptical about recent management changes, execution of new projects, and as far as I know, concerns about company morale and cohesiveness.

But, so many are so anxious to relate the story of Microsoft's imminent demise that they are not seeing straight. People keep looking for the next big thing and then making the connection that is the Microsoft killer.

Linux was going to dethrone Windows. Well, no. Certainly very many machines that might be running (and licensing) Windows are running Linux; however, the growth of new machines running Windows is phenomenal. Microsoft is winning this battle.

Now Google is going to dethrone Microsoft. How again?

With the best search engine out there?
With the best mapping / sattellite software?
A new special-purpose OS (quick, everybody: rewrite everything! Microsoft will be buried in a year!). (Dan has recently posted some thoughts on this)
With new applications for Windows? A new Word processor?
In the enterprise?

I see much more opportunity for synergy between these companies than one destroying the other (I actually have tremendous respect for Google, by the way). I can understand why there is a battle here starting with the search engine (and going down into the OS). Microsoft wants to be the top search engine (eyeballs equate to revenues in the search market). But, this doesn't equate to Google causing Microsoft's demise.

And of course, Microsoft is not sitting still and waiting to be destroyed by anybody. Not only are they creating new products (and product features), but they are working on a bigger more connected vision that is actually pretty cool.

I think the big problem is that the Microsoft haters will always hate Microsoft. These people revel knowing that Google and Microsoft are at war and hope they have finally chosen the right horse.

Anyway, I think the reports of Microsoft's death are greatly exaggerated. (apologies to Mark Twain).