Monthly Archives: May 2010

Who Knows What’s Up in the Mobile Internet Space in Russia? GOAP

Who Knows What’s Up in the Mobile Internet Space in Russia? GOAP
In Beijing at GMIC I am listening to a Russian Internet entrepreneur (iFree) tell us how his company, a Russian portal developer, is shifting strategy for the growth of mobile platforms.

He begins by saying that of the 142 million people in the former Soviet Union, only 43m are on the Internet. The use of the Internet is growing rapidly, and changing even as it grows. Portals, his firm’s core product, are destined for slow extinction (my observation, not his). In a market growing so quickly, social networks are already three of the five most visited Russian internet sites. More staggering, a whopping 50 % of incoming email in Russia is alerts from social networks.

Russian content and services are a $1.9 billion market that started with messaging in 2005, followed by portals in 2006, ring tones in 2007-8 and m-commerce in 2009. Those were the historical market drivers. This year, customization Is huge, especially ringback tones.

But since the percentage of mobile Internet is still only 19%, expected to grow to 30% this year, huge business model disruptions are inevitable.This turbulent and growing market has led portal developer iFree to a new strategy particularly for mobile, in which fourteen trends led them to ten assumptions, which led the company’s management to one decision
Some of the Trends:

Rise of smart phones
Mobile apps
Mobile Internet use
Social social networks
SNS
Tagging of objects in the real world
Tagging of people
New forms of Image delivery
Augmented realIty

Trends like these led the company to these assumptions:

App stores outside of operators control will give mobile users control over their experience E-money and e- payments will become most convenient way to pay
Social networks will give users most of the infrastructure they need
There is a place for new big brands coming from mobile and social apps market
There will be an enormous integration of real and digital worlds, with the mobile device as the mechanism

So iFree decided to form an entirely new venture hub to leverage resources for fast growth in these newly forming markets. From what I can gather, top management has stepped back from day to day operations to focus completely on innovations in mobile. I bet they end up cannibalizing their current business in order to move forward. Go I-free!
Francine Hardaway, Ph D
GV: 816.WRITTEN

Posted via email from Not Really Stealthmode

Amplify

China Mobile Internet Conference and GeeksonaPlane

China Mobile Internet Conference and GeeksonaPlane
I am coming to the conclusion that China doesn’t need us. Last night, a star-studded panel of expats and Chinese-American returnees basically let us know that they had it under control. they simply got the big ideas from us, took them to China, and executed on them.This was the kickoff evening of the China Mobile Internet Conference. Mobile, of course, is on the way up. Only 30% of Chinese are on the Internet, but 770,000,000 people have mobile phones and as 3G spreads ( it’s new here) the move to smart phones is inevitable. We heard from companies and investors already in the space.

There is no endemic entrepreneurial culture in China, where people are fungible. It seems to be the people educated outside who start the companies, employing teams of top engineers from the many graduating In China every day. There is still a shortage of capital but a host of SiliconValley and corporate VCs are in the process of changing that.

Once the companies are started or cloned, the size of the market makes them quickly into $500 million behemoths that can IPO on their choice of exchanges: London, NASDAQ, and China’s own NASDAQ, which after just one year has already seen over 65 IPOs.

The biggest problem for Chinese companies is not market– it is retaining talent. A company can expect 20% turnover every year. Most large American companies trying to enter the Chinese market and most American investors don’t know this. The most outspoken panelist said if you weren’t willing to relocate your CEO and management team to China for at least 6 months of the year, you shouldn’t even attempt China. That’s why most early American entrants to the Chinese market from the west failed.

I can see that personally we GeeksonaPlane have no function here, except to be learners and to bring information back home. Much like the early explorers, I feel lIke I have discovered the mysteries of the Orient, but there’s so much customization necessary here that we can’t colonize it anymore.

Posted via email from Not Really Stealthmode

Amplify

China Can Be Scary

China Can Be Scary
China is really frightening. Having spent the last three days meeting with Chinese startups and investors, I can see how their culture could easily eat our lunch. it is still difficult and expensive to get wi-fi here, so I will briefly summarize my thoughts and refer you to this presentation by Benjamin Joffee that tells it all. Benjamin is an Internet strategist who has been working here for five years. If what he’s seen is anything like what I’ve experienced on this return visit ( my fourth over a 30 year period, it is mind boggling. Just look at the chopsticks in the preso and you will be convinced. http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/plus8star/business-models-reengineering-in-c…
CENTRAL PLANNING
We read about it, but can’t easily visualize it. China builds the equivalent of two Boston-sized cities a year, and has done that for 30 years. People’s homes are torn down and they are relocated to modern high rises. Older generations used to squatting over a hole in the ground are now treated to hotels with modern bathrooms out of Architectural Digest (Kohler manufactures here, as does Toto, so programmable and heated toilet/bidets are everywhere in hotels and restaurants.

There are now twelve subway lines in Shanghai, where last time I was here i think there were two. In Beijing, the airport and the hotel we’re in were built for the 2008 Olympics.

INNOVATION

The Chinese have an unashamedly different view of innovation. They watch what we do on Tech Crunch and then they clone it in a matter of days for their enormous markets. They have several competing Twitter, Facebook, YouTube clones, and TaoTao and Alibaba are their EBay and Paypal. Baidu is their Google. They are PROUD of how quickly they can clone our IP, and since they don’t need our markets they can block our sites with no great suffering. The expats and geeks use VPNs anyway. They quickly build $500million local companies and exit by taking them public on our stock exchanges or their own.

China doesn’t have, as one VC who spoke to us put it, “those pesky privacy rules,” so they can keep all the billions of text messages generated on their ubiquitous mobile phones (they skipped land lines) and mine them to generate targeted advertising. Watch a startup here called Massive Impact.

TAKEAWAYS

Just the sheer size of the financial district we saw in Shanghai and the enormous expansion of Starbucks is enough to convince me that if we don’t partner with China she can eat our lunch in healthcare, internet, and IT — the fields I know well. Not to mention that this current five year plan, their twelfth, is entirely focussed on clean energy and lowering China’s carbon footprint. China is fighting a different war; the economic war. For this, it doesn’t need soldiers, just armies of young people with entrepreneurial aspirations and a historical desire to get back to ruling the world.

Francine Hardaway, Ph D
GV: 816.WRITTEN

Posted via email from Not Really Stealthmode

Amplify

Geeks on a Plane: Shanghai

Geeks on a Plane: Shanghai
Geeks on a Plane is a trip that seeks to bridge cultural differences by focussing around the common interests of technology and entrepreneurship. There are about fifty of us, from all over the world, gathered in Shanghai to meet the local technologists and Investors and compare notes. We. Leave Shanghai tomorrow for Beijing, Seoul and Singapore. In each place there’s a conference, a dinner, and meetings. The contacts are invaluable: I’ve already connected/been connected to amazing global resources.
The logistics of this would be mind-boggling if it weren’t for Christine Lu, a powerful woman with the global reach of somebody with one foot in Los Angeles and the other foot in China. She and Dave McClure, outspoken Silicon Valley VC, can make anything happen.

So: with that background, let’s talk preliminary observations about tech in Shanghai:
1) it is everywhere. Programmable toilets in the airport lounge, automated parking that locks up your car if you don’t feed the meter ( no tickets, no metermaids), security everywhere (Rapiscan, video at immigration, metal detectors outside posh hotels) and quite a bit of Internet blocking.
2) undependable wi-fi and difficulty with varying interfaces
3) ubiquitous cell phones
4) equally ubiquitous, characterless new construction that looks like New York housing projects of the 1950s
5) young,ambitious creative classmates converging from everywhere to start businesses that capitalize on large local markets and American companies who want visibility in China.
6) Incredible Infrastructure investment (subways, Maglev trains)
7) energy

In general, if you haven’t been to China in the past five years, you haven’t been. The tradeoffs are the same as in any rapidly developing culture — the destruction of history in the name of progress, the carelessness about human rights, the rigors of central planning. China is a massive planned community designed by engineers, who can always solve problems and rarely give you a delightful user experience.

More detail coming, and photos at Http://www.Flickr.com/Hardaway. The set is called “geeksonaplane.”

Francine Hardaway, Ph D
GV: 816.WRITTEN

Posted via email from Not Really Stealthmode

Amplify

Coalition Government vs Two Party Politics

Coalition Government vs Two Party Politics
Rand Paul, an otherwise educated man, blew himself up last night trying to be true to his small government, free enterprise views. He allowed Rachel Maddow to drag out of him the fact that he believed it was the right of a private business to segregate it’s facilities. A Muslim woman who wrote a book about the threat of home-grown terrorism among American Muslims now needs personal security because she did something a woman shouldn’t do (write a book about how women are treated) and teacher’s unions on the left threaten education reform in New York. These are just this morning’s examples of the dangers of ideological purity in a complex world.We all know the dangers of extreme views, but America seems to be headed in the direction of deadlocks between the extreme left and extreme right, the religious zealots and the atheists. The middle ground is vanishing even faster than the middle class.

And in the past, ideological purity led to communism, fascism, and all the other “isms” under which ethnic cleansing and holocausts happen.

The recent British election should give us a model for how to deal with our own zealots. No one got a majority, because three parties were in contention. They formed a coalition government, in which everyone has the will to get things done, rather than the will to freeze things that don’t reflect ideological purity. There’s a difference between personal beliefs and public good sometimes, and that’s what makes government succeed. It isn’t going to go away, so it is time to make it better.

It is time for more than a two party system in this very complex America. The growing number of registered independents (of whom I am one) tells us there’s a need. Those of us who hold some of Rand Paul’s pro-business views but certainly couldn’t vote for a man who would segregate lunch counters, those of us who want to be Muslims without mutilating women, or who want immigration reform without S.B. 1070 need to be counted. Keep the phrase “coalition government” in mind. It might be where we end up. Perhaps the Tea Party shouldn’t let itself be hi-jacked by wackos, or perhaps a socialist party should emerge, forcing Republicans and Democrats back to the middle. Or perhaps the Independents should engage as a political force in the middle. In France, I think they have all of those and more.

Britain might not be perfect, but it’s older than we are, and its governmental institutions are more mature. Maybe we should look back to look forward.

Amplify

Check.in Should Stay in Beta

Check.in Should Stay in Beta

The existence of Check.in was only  a rumor at this year’s SXSW. We were all running around checking in to places with three or four different services, and as a result I never looked anyone in the eye the entire time I was in Austin.

It would have been my dream to have an app that checked me in to three  services at once. And  now that  I have one, I can tell you what’s wrong with it:-)

First of all, it’s slow. V…e…r…..y slow. I could check in manually on Gowalla, Brightkite and Foursquare before Check.in finishes its magical place matching.

Second, it doesn’t give you the opportunity to post photos. Neither does Foursquare, but I loved doing that on Brightkite. And since I’m off to China, Korea and Singapore on Friday, wouldn’t you like to know where I’ve been and what it looks like?

Check.in also doesn’t give you an opportunity to choose whether you want to share to Twitter or Facebook, neither or both.

It doesn’t tell  you which friends are at a given place, either. Have you ever looked up from your laptop and thought to yourself, “where is everbody?” The underlying services will help you find your friends if you are looking for something to do, but Check.in won’t do that research for you.

It’s also no fun. It’s just a utilitarian app.  No badges, leaderboards, or things to put in your pack. Of course I don’t care about those, but many people like the gaming aspects of location-based services. [I take it back. I've been known to fight over the mayorship of Houston's or New Leaf with friends].

But the weakest part of Check.in is something that’s not at all Check.in’s fault: the underlying databases are all different. Some are user-entered, or power-user edited. Some are not. Therefore, the same location may have different names, or a location will be in one service and not the other.

All this can be corrected, because Check.in is in beta. But I thought since the pros like RWW’s Sarah Perez were weighing in, I’d offer my own opinion.

Amplify

Progressives Can Learn from the Tea Party

Progressives Can Learn from the Tea Party

I am a Progressive, and yet even I know that we’re going to need a change in the way we run our government, both federal and state, or places like California and Arizona will be Greece.

In America, no state wants to be Greece. In Arizona, we are about to vote on a 1% sales tax, which is already unpopular, but necessary to keep the jobs of teachers and first responders. We are also about to fight health care reform, and it has been suggested that we drop out of Medicaid in 2014.  The organizations fighting the sales tax will probably lose,  because we are in dire need of both short term and long term fixes for our budget deficit. But is it the right thing to do?

California is in the same position. What amuses me is that Arizona is “conservative” and California is “liberal” in the eye of the beholders. In other words,  as a state you’re short funds right now whether you were a tax-and-spend state or a not-another-nickel-for-children state. Only Montana seems to be okay. And that’s probably because it has such a small population.

It’s time to choose what we want government to do.  Both education and health care should be massively revamped, as they, prisons, and unfunded federal mandates are the bulk of every state’s budget. Good luck getting health care or education done, because of all the vested interests, including rioting students and sick seniors. But here are some suggestions, some gleaned from the Tea Party:

1) Invite outside experts to come in and evaluate some state programs to see if they are indeed useful. Many state programs, such as Arizona’s Drug and Violence Prevent program,  don’t do much good and although they are small, they are part of our death by a thousand cuts. Others might be poorly managed, especially education and health care.

2) Automate more processes in state government. Arizona has done a better job of this than many other states, with is Service Arizona Portal for the Motor Vehicle Division. Almost all information processes can be shifted online, where customers can serve themselves for routine needs.

3) Kill the state agencies that have already been so wounded that they can’t do what they were set up to do: the Arts Commission, the Historical Association, and the Tourism department. Since tourism is a business, let’s just privatize it. I laughed when Gov. Brewer, after signing S.B. 1070, convened a tourism task force and gave it scarce money to turn around Arizona’s image. I wanted her to buy school supplies instead.

4) Reform the tax structure. This has been proposed since I moved to Arizona. We have very low property taxes, because we’re controlled by the real estate industry. The real estate lobby sees our entire state as one big piece of real estate. But we should bring our property taxes in line with those of other states.

5)If we are going down that road, let’s take some of our empty real estate and convert it to education uses, rather than building more schools. Charter schools have proven that adaptive re-use of existing real estate works.

6) Legalize and tax medical marijuana. Voters actually passed an initiative to do this in 1996, and tacked on to it is the Parents Commission on Drug and Violence Control. The legalization of medical marijuana was never implemented, and yet the Parents Commission was formed and spends money every year. California is on the way to doing this. It would also help the border problem, since Americans use the drugs, and their illegality makes them cost more. We can’t tax a Mexican drug cartel, but we can tax a medical marijuana dispensary.

7) Release non-violent drug offenders from Arizona prisons. According to the Goldwater Institute and the legislature, this would save $100 million annually.

8) Consolidate the school districts. This is another idea that has been circulating for forty years.  We have massive overlap in our districts: there are hundreds of districts, some with only one or two schools. Each has a superintendent, and a board, and administrative costs. These little districts, and indeed our entire way of educating children, comes from the 19th century. We need some sort of “lean manufacturing” consultant to fix this for us.

9) Instead of dropping out of Medicaid, get on board and push for outcomes-based medicine and new methods of delivery (telemedicine) that will lower costs for all branches of government.

The problem with all these suggestions is that there’s so much “funny math” on both sides, that it’s hard to tell what might really be cost effective. Americans for Prosperity says Arizona spent over $9000 per student last year, but  the Arizona Tax Research Association says that number is $6000 and according to the education association, that puts us dead last among states. And never mind whether there’s a real correlation between that and achievement. That’s above my pay grade,

Amplify

S.B. 1070 Suit Will be Filed Monday

S.B. 1070 Suit Will be Filed Monday
Here's a copy of the media alert for Monday's press conference if you are interested:

***MEDIA ADVISORY***

Nation’s Leading Civil Rights Groups File Lawsuit Challenging Arizona’s Racial Profiling Law

 

Groups Will Discuss Implications Of Discriminatory Law And Grounds For Legal Challenge

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 14, 2010

CONTACT:

Alessandra Soler Meetze, ACLU of Arizona, (602) 773-6006; ameetze@acluaz.org

 

NEW YORK – On Monday, May 17 at 9:30 a.m. PDT/12:30 p.m. EDT, a coalition of leading rights organizations will hold a national media call to announce and discuss the filing of its legal challenge to Arizona’s unconstitutional racial profiling law. 

 

The coalition includes the American Civil Liberties Union; MALDEF; National Immigration Law Center (NILC); the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) and Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC), a member of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice.

 

Arizona’s new law requires police to demand "papers" from people they stop who they suspect are not authorized to be in the U.S. and criminalizes immigrants for failing to carry immigration papers. The unconstitutional law, the groups say, encourages racial profiling, endangers public safety and betrays American values.   

 

WHAT: 
National Media Call to Announce Filing of Lawsuit Challenging SB1070


WHO: 
Lucas Guttentag, Director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project; Nina Perales, Southwest Regional Counsel of MALDEF; Linton Joaquin, General Counsel of NILC.

 

Hilary Shelton, Senior Vice President for Advocacy and Policy of NAACP; Stewart Kwoh, Executive Director of APALCPablo Alvarado, Executive Director of NDLON; Alessandra Soler Meetze, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arizona and others will also be available on the call for questions.


WHEN:

Monday, May 17 at 9:30 a.m. PDT/12:30 p.m. EDT

DIAL: 
If you’re a member of the media and need dial-in information, please e-mail ameetze@acluaz.org.

 

 

Posted via email from Not Really Stealthmode

Amplify

A Paradigm Shift Will Fix Health Care

A Paradigm Shift Will Fix Health Care
Aside from all the politics and interest groups, a disruptive shift is actually occurring in health care.  And no, it’s not electronic health records or health insurance reform, although they will be tools.  This is bigger.  It’s a conceptual shift in how providers are beginning to see disease.

The shift is from a one-size fits all model of providing health care to a unique health assessment and plan for every individual. Trust me, this is big, and until I saw this slideshow prepared by the Ralph Snyderman MD, Chancellor Emeritus of Duke, I hadn’t really thought much about it, although I’ve lived through a great deal of it.
The medical model in the 20th century, according to this theory, was a “one size fits all” model: there’s one cause of a disease, and if we find it, we fix it. This model developed out of the discovery of germs and their role in causing illness. During the last century, we focused on anatomy, physiology, chemistry, physics, and pathology — the tools that helped the doctor find the single cause of the disease. This “find it, fix it” model was reactive, not always effective, and has nearly bankrupted American society at a time when we have an aging population. If we try to treat them all with the reactive model –you come to us with a symptom, we find it, and we fix it– we are often intervening too late. That’s why people complain so much about whether they can get in to see a doctor.
But things have been evolving philosophically. On a very minor level, you can see it with, for example back pain. If you give X-rays to most older people you will see degenerative disc disease.  And yet all older people don’t have pain.  Same thing is true of Alzheimer’s disease. Many people who have no symptoms are autopsied and found to have the disease markers. Here’s another one: we know smoking causes lung cancer, but not everyone who smokes dies of lung cancer. So these diseases are never “found,” and supposedly never “fixed.” Clearly, not everybody responds  to the same “cause” with the same “disease.” (Or at least the same symptoms that require expensive interventions.)
Fortunately for us, we’ve arrived just in time at a different perspective on disease. Because of genomics, proteomics, systems biology, micro-nanoprocessing, and informatics, we can now make a pretty educated guess as to who’s predisposed to get what, and then take steps to prevent it while there’s still time. That’s going to change “find it and fix it” to “predict it and prevent it.” If I were a smoker, and found out I also had the genetic predisposition for cancer, I might be more energized to give up the habit.
The cost savings involved in early intervention have been known for years. But now we’re actually at a moment in time where a doctor can stop practicing “hamster medicine” (which is what they call it when you see 25 patients a day and do little besides triage), and actually begin actually talking to patients who are not yet sick. Each patient could be tested, receive a personalized health assessment and a personal plan based on his or her individual risks.
Under this model, care could be coordinated through a medical “home” for each patient, and we would neither be needlessly exposing every 40-year-old woman to radiation for a mammography, or making blanket rules to deny mammograms to people under 50 just to cut costs. We could offer them to people who can actually benefit from the early detection they provide.
I’m a fan of innovative ways to approach problems, a fan of disruptive technology, and a fan of system thinking. You can imagine how much I like this paradigm shift. It can’t come soon enough for me.

Amplify

An Arizonan Reflects on SB 1070

An Arizonan Reflects on SB 1070

I live in Arizona, home of SB 1070, so this post will be hard. It's complicated. I grew up in New York City, granddaughter of immigrants, in the shadow of the Holocaust and under the upraised arm of the Statue of Liberty. I have paid taxes in Arizona for over 40 years without ever having the state government do anything I believed in. I am tired of being called names because I am against SB 1070.

Here are my thoughts. Like I said, it's complicated, especially if you live here.

First the obvious arguments you hear from everyone:

Arizona has almost half a million illegal immigrants, and they do overwhelm the schools, hospitals, and other public services.
They work for wages Americans won't work for, and they drive wages down.
Many do not speak English, and entire neighborhoods have become barrios.
Texas and California have built fences at their borders, and that funnels the illegals through the Arizona desert, in which many die.
Border towns have high crime rates, because of Mexican drug wars and human trafficking.

However, for years Arizona had English/Spanish versions of just about everything, and it was because of our Mexican heritage, of which we were really proud. Arizona has borrowed Mexican art and architecture liberally, and everyone here eats Mexican food. Most Arizonans have their lawns mowed, their houses built and remodeled, and their food prepared by Mexicans. We've admired their work ethic and taken advantages of their services.  They have nannied our children, cleaned our houses, and picked our produce. Our zealous real estate community has sold them  homes, and encouraged them to be part of our communities.
We have started Hispanic-focused marketing and advertising programs to get them to buy our products. They have been hailed as an up-and-coming "market segment." 30% of us (Arizonans) are them (Hispanics).

We never asked them if they were legal. As long as they were useful, we didn't really care. We assumed the best.

As a country, and as a state, we have looked the other way until recently. Then, suddenly, the economy re-set and here we are looking for people to blame. Why are there no manufacturing jobs and no construction jobs? Why, the Mexicans are doing them. Why do we have such large class sizes? It's those Mexicans. Why have crime rates soared? It's the Mexicans, of course. How about blaming Goldman Sachs, or the Fed? That's who most Americans are blaming. Only in Arizona have we turned against our neighbors.

Ironically, many illegals have already left Arizona. They know there's no work here. But the reason they don't go back to Mexico is that businesses in the US continue to hire them.  Maybe not Arizona businesses, but all the other states that don't use E-Verify and don't have Sheriff Joe to make those daily sweeps and raids. They work in the chicken processing plants and the manufacturing plans in the midwest, the east, and the south. We're just the first stop for them.

As for the drug wars? Americans are the consumers of the drugs. Everybody wants marijuana from Mexico, and that's why it is such a big business.  If we legalized it and taxed it, we could build more schools and hospitals and stop the violence at the border, which is about the illegal drugs, not the illegal immigrants. The illegal immigrants are just looking for work.

And don't get me started on Congress. This isn't Arizona's problem; it's Congress's problem. The Federal government is supposed to protect the borders. Those chickenshits are too scared to do anything on comprehensive immigration reform, so they've left it to the crazies in Arizona, who have their own agendas that are so deeply hidden that no one dares speak of them.  But they can get sanitized as "law and order." That doesn't make any of it right, or in line with the American values with which I grew up (give me your tired, your poor…)

Which brings me to "enforcing the law." According to the law, if you are illegally in the US, it is only a civil crime, and shouldn't be a matter for this kind of enforcement. It is not a criminal offense to have overstayed your visa, unless you do something else, like blow up an SUV in Times Square.

But now we assume the worst, and that's what is really wrong with this law. Under this law, my housekeeper and friend Olivia, who has been with me for fifteen years and who is definitely legal, feels bad when she goes out in the street because she doesn't speak English. Since I met her, I've been teaching her English and she has been teaching me Spanish.  We have a lot of fun with it, but I will tell you she has learned a lot more English than I have Spanish. Last Thursday, in our usual Spanglish conversation, I brought up the subject of this law, and suddenly we were both in each others' arms crying.

As I said, it's complicated. What do I conclude? That if you assume the worst of people you will get it. And if you assume the best, you will get that, too.

Posted via email from Not Really Stealthmode

Amplify