Posted on February 26, 2007
Filed Under Software, Technology & The Web | Leave a Comment
Google released a minor extension to their spreadsheet offering and it’s not only a winner but offers a glimpse of the future of web-based applications.
Quite simply one can type =google(”entity”,”attribute”) and the value will be returned. This is an incredibly simple but powerful construct.
Imagine that if in documents, spreadsheets, and even conversations one could simply summon the oracle and get the answer. This is a big deal.
Besides all the business applications this shows the power of flexible binding in that it could easily be made available to people who can’t type for them to research and explore the online world based on where their mind would like to take them.
This is another piece of evidence that Google understands where things are going far better than Microsoft or Yahoo. We continue to be amazed at their inability to grasp the future of software.
Posted on February 26, 2007
Filed Under Companies, Markets & Finance | Leave a Comment
There’s plenty of ink flowing around the “commoditization of Starbucks” and the recent memo from Howard Schultz to the current CEO about it. As an investor and coffee addict the solution seems so simple that I’m surprised to see so many making a fuss about it.
In a word it is branding. Coke is still Coke although they own Dasani water and have expaned in to a broad variety of energy and health drinks. Some say Starbucks should go back to a mode that highlights the “theater” of making a cup of coffee. The fact is many locations are where commuters stop in to get a decent cup before work and only have minutes. There are other times when one wants to take that half hour and relax. This is when the little independent shop or even a Peet’s gets the nod.
So the answer is pretty simple. Starbucks should buy Peet’s or others and turn them into another brand with fresh ground beans, exotic brews and so on. Maybe the retail concept has to be turned into coffee tasting bars with beans and equipment for sale under another brand. Starbucks is big. This is where segmentation begins. It’s not a new concept in consumer branding and retail.
Posted on February 8, 2007
Filed Under Starting Up | Leave a Comment
For those following our path through our start up phase we made quite a few changes with the new year. Here is a quick summary:
1. We moved away from a deep focus on MIT research to a broader approach looking at efforts of “lesser” schools. For one thing there is a huge amount of compelling research work going on around the globe. The other reason is that MIT is so good at what they do there are dozens if not a dozen dozen corporate officers, venture capitalists and technology business writers swarming all over the place. When a pin drops at MIT it sounds like an earthquake everywhere else. On the other hand we have been able to find very good research work that struggles for recognition in other places. We can probably find more opportunities to add value in the latter.
2. Even after carefully selecting a handful of distribution partners to work, with we discovered they just don’t fit our model. So out went Research & Markets, Reuters, Payloadz and a few others too small to mention. We built our own distribution infrastructure and have chosen to work with S&P/Capital IQ to the extent we need a dedicated institutional investor channel.
3. We opted for new web development tools like Wordpress for the blog and plain old HTML and PHP/MySQL for the website. Dreamweaver is still used a bit but most of the site can be edited simply as text. For the record Yahoo Sitebuilder and tools like it get you started but then make it very hard to move to a more powerful platform. If I had it to do over again I would have started out with CSS, HTML and PHP to begin with.
4. No advertising, only sponsorships. We played around with AdWords, AdSense and competitors over the year to understand them. They certainly work well for many businesses but not ours. We have found some sponsorships to work well for us in terms of finding customers and similarly believe we have many potential sponsors for 2007 that want to reach out to our client base.
5. Go monthly. We published some industry and company reports in 2006 but not nearly enough. Part of the solution is to create a train that leaves the station regularly - that’s the monthly. The other is to have a hard production plan for industry and company reports that will start modestly and adjusted as needed. By adding an institutional membership level we make it possible to push out unedited content that might or might not be part of our research agenda but is unquestionably of interest to institutional investors.
6. After spending much of 2006 learning we are dramatically scaling back our conference attendance in 2007. Although we will miss being there we’re building tools and content that should be on the agenda one year rather than sitting around listening to what others are doing. To us this is a better use of our time now. We will still do FiRE 2007 and may only do TED in 2008.
As soon as things settle down we will update our resources page that tracks the tools and services we are using in our business.
Posted on February 1, 2007
Filed Under Companies, Markets & Finance, Software, Technology & The Web | Leave a Comment
Like everyone else in the world we posted our glib view that many Windows users would want Vista after seeing the demo yesterday. However a well researched and explained post can be found over at WWD.
The post is focused on Windows users who are of course the audience this question pertains to, not those using Mac OSX or Linux. As we said it’s more likely to be acquired via a new PC so isn’t going to be a landslide like some earlier versions of Windows that didn’t require as much new hardware.
The ability to upgrade to Office 2007 on XP is another good point made in the article which we hadn’t thought about. Still we think most of the Vista and Office 2007 footprints will be made with new hardware.