Editor’s note: Guest author Jon Evans is a novelist, journalist, and software engineer.

Oh, Research In Motion. You never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

RIM was born in my home town, at my alma mater, so it’s depressing watching their empire rot and crumble before the Android / iPhone onslaught. I had high hopes for their new tablet, a potential game-changer—but alas, they’ve hamstrung it before it’s even been released. Here’s what they should have done with it:

1) Embrace Android (phones)

RIM proudly announced that while their PlayBook can’t connect to cell networks, it can tether to a compatible BlackBerry via Bluetooth. They might as well have installed a ”For BlackBerry Owners Only” startup screen. Way to pre-alienate most of the market, guys.

Instead they should have stressed that they can also connect via Wi-Fi to Android 2.2 phones, and announced an Android app that syncs data between Androids and PlayBooks. They can’t support the iPhone, Apple would never allow it, but Android’s wide open.

“But Android is the competition!” No, Android tablets are. Tablets and phones are entirely different entities. RIM’s tech people understand that: it’s why the PlayBook runs a brand-new OS built by QNX, a company they bought earlier this year, rather than a new iteration of the archaic BlackBerry OS. Which is no bad thing—QNX is well-regarded, and time-tested. (I fondly remember being reprimanded for hacking into my high school’s QNX system many years ago.)

Until RIM drops that millstone called the BlackBerry OS, or replaces it with a QNX-based version, Android and Apple will eat their phones for lunch. Meanwhile, they need to accept that the PlayBook should complement rather than compete with Android phones.

2) WebWorks or AIR: Pick One.

I’m an app developer. Pity me. I have to know Java, Eclipse, Objective-C, XCode, and both the Android and iOS SDKs. I could use a cross-compiler like PhoneGap, but they’re clunky and slow to implement new features. If Windows Phone 7 takes off, I need to master another language, environment, and platform—and while BlackBerry apps are written in Java, it’s an older version than Android’s, and the SDK is completely different.

I liked Palm, but I was delighted to see it die, and Nokia’s decay into irrelevance is a relief. Nothing against them; I just don’t want the hassle. App developers don’t want choice, we want consistency.

So what does RIM give us? Choice. First they offer free PlayBooks to developers who build PlayBook apps with Adobe’s AIR. Then they say you can build both PlayBook and BlackBerry 6 apps with BlackBerry WebWorks. Rather than split their development and support resources between two different platforms, they should have chosen one and ran with it. These “choices” will only confuse and irritate the app makers who will determine their fate.

3) Change the name. And the target market.

PlayBook? Really? You’re Research In Motion. You’re business, baby. Your tech level may be a little antiquated, but you’re secure, you get stuff done, and the new tablet brings you back up to speed. You should be targeting corporate videoconferencing and hospital patient data and business travelers. That’s why you’ve got BlackBerry tethering, right?

Instead you called it the PlayBook and can’t stop talking about how it runs Flash, both of which will make CIOs everywhere raise skeptical eyebrows. You’re trying to be all things to all users, including consumers—but Android tablets run Flash too, and they’ll be available for Christmas; the iPad boasts a bigger screen, superior apps, and the Apple halo; and worst of all, the PlayBook will probably launch right in the teeth of the iPad 2 hype machine. RIM should conquer the business-tablet space first. Instead, they already look like also-rans before they even have their running shoes on.

It’s a shame. I wish RIM well, and their new tablet looks like a potentially superb device. But they’re squandering that potential before it even has a chance to succeed.

How RIM’s PlayBook Could Have Succeeded

All the hoopla over the Wall Street Journal’s so-called Facebook “privacy breach” article, it’s subsequent and curiously-timed MySpace followup, and also the New York Times’ take on the ability of Facebook advertisers to target ads for nursing schools to gay men is unwittingly creating cover for a social networking privacy issue that’s much bigger. It might be surprising to some, but it turns out that U.S. federal agents have been urged to “friend” people in order to spy on them.

The feds operate such social sting operations aided by the fact that there are very few individuals that actually know every single person in their “friend” list on Facebook. For instance, it is typical to connect to someone because one thinks they might have met them. Or, a connection might take place because two people share common interests and want to view each other’s news posts going forward. But that’s not how the government sees it.

In a memo obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) discovered that the Feds see Facebook as a psychological crutch for the needy. Here’s a direct quote from a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) memo: “Narcissistic tendencies in many people fuels a need to have a large group of “friends” link to their pages and many of these people accept cyber-friends that they don’t even know.” And it gets worse.

The memo explains that these “tendencies” provide “an excellent vantage point for FDNS to observe the daily life of beneficiaries and petitioners who are suspected of fraudulent activities.” Translation: spy on unsuspecting people on Facebook and MySpace in order to catch the bad guys.

Such tactics are decidedly creepy (how many completely innocent people are they spying on), but the argument could be made that if you have nothing to hide, then why worry? Here’s why: many people post items to their profiles that they forget to update or that are not necessarily true, and which they certainly wouldn’t be saying if they knew they were under investigation. Indeed, a recent study initiated by UK insurance company Direct Line concluded that “people are more likely to be dishonest when chatting using technology, such as Twitter, than they would be face to face.”

Why is it that people might lie more on social media than in person? According to Psychologist Glenn Wilson, “we sometimes use these means of communication rather than a face-to-face encounter or a full conversation when we want to be untruthful, as it is easier to fib to someone when we don’t have to deal with their reactions or control our own body language.” This leads to a few common sense conclusions.

First, government officials need to take note that one should not believe everything one reads on the Internet—even if it is generated by a “person of interest.” Second, as the EFF’s Jennifer Lynch pointed out, “the memo makes no mention of what level of suspicion, if any, an agent must find before conducting such surveillance, leaving every applicant as a potential target.” In a country that prides itself on freedom of speech, government should not be in the business of creating an atmosphere that could chill expression.

On October 18^th, Congressmen Edward Markey (D., Mass.) and Joe Barton (R., Texas) sent Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg a letter in which they expressed their concern about marketing companies that “gathered and transmitted personally identifiable information about Facebook users and those users’ friends.”

To many tech folks, it seems more than a bit hypocritical for government representatives to be going after Silicon Valley companies for using social networking data when the government is doing exactly the same thing itself (and more). In addition to bureaucrats urging agents to befriend targets, the EFF also discovered that the Department of Homeland Security used “a ‘Social Networking Monitoring Center’ to collect and analyze online public communication during President Obama’s inauguration.” And, recall how Google Maps has been used to track down hoes with “unpermitted” pools in Long Island, NY. Those Big Brother moves are much more disconcerting than Facebook applications using referrer URLs to better target ads.

Editor’s note: Guest author Sonia Arrison is a senior fellow in technology studies at the San Francisco-based Pacific Research Institute and has been writing about privacy issues for over a decade. Follow her on Twitter @soniaarrison.

Photo credit: Flickr/nolifebeforecoffee.

The Real Privacy Scandal On Social Networks: The Feds Are Spying On Their “Friends”

After visiting Okinawa, Japan, and meeting with global experts on innovation, I’ve come to the conclusion that Silicon Valley’s greatest advantage isn’t its diversity; it is the fact that it accepts and glorifies failure. Like many other countries, Japan has tried replicating Silicon Valley. It built fancy tech parks, provided subsidies for R&D, and even created a magnificent new research university. Yet there are few tech startups, and there is little innovation; Japan’s economy is stagnant.

There is a reason for this stagnation.

In any country, innovation and economic growth come from startup ventures. But most Japanese don’t want to take the risk of starting a business. Indeed, the social stigma and financial repercussion of failure are so great that the founders of failed businesses become social outcasts; no one will work with them again or fund them; and all too often they end up committing suicide.

Jeff Char, who is a serial entrepreneur and CEO of Tokyo-based incubator J-Seed Ventures, told me that he sees huge opportunities for startups in Japan, and that there is almost no competition there. One of his new ventures, Piku Media, is a Groupon clone that has been able to rapidly create a new market. In the Japanese tech industry, the playing field is wide open. There is also no shortage of experienced engineering talent. But, because society doesn’t tolerate failure or respect entrepreneurs, Char can’t get engineers to leave their industry jobs to join his startups. He also can’t find any experienced entrepreneurs to lead his companies: once entrepreneurs fail, they are out of the game. Hence most ventures in Japan are managed by first-time entrepreneurs. And of course they make the same mistakes as their predecessors—because there is no one for them to learn from.

In the old days, most businesses were in manufacturing, services, or retail. A business failure was associated with unethical practices or mismanagement. Things moved slowly. But the tech world is very different. Even though the basics of building a business are always the same, technology changes rapidly and so requires the creation of new business models. New technologies and business models are developed through experimentation. Entrepreneurs start risky ventures to test their ideas and raise financing from others who have been down the path before—and achieved success. And they learn from one another. Innovation is a by-product of this synergy and experimentation.

This is something that Silicon Valley figured out long ago, and that is how it left other tech centers in the dust. Failure is regarded as a badge of honor, not as an object of shame. When you meet tech entrepreneurs in Palo Alto or Berkeley and ask them what they do, they typically tell you about their current startup; then they start showing off about all of their previous failures—because to have failed means to have gained experience and to have learned.

Japan is an extreme, but things aren’t that different in other parts of the world. In Germany, for example, company founders are held personally liable for unpaid debt for up to 30 years—even after they declare bankruptcy. So if the business fails, they lose their house; their savings; practically everything they have. What’s worse: the Japanese and German entrepreneurs may also face criminal penalties and go to jail. So they try to avoid business exit at any cost—even if this means personally absorbing business losses. The result is that you see very few business startups, and those companies that are started take few risks.

The lesson that other regions need to learn from Silicon Valley is to glorify and embrace their failed entrepreneurs. Countries such as Germany, Japan, France, and India need to change their laws to allow high-tech companies to be started and shut down more easily. Their leaders need to work toward removing the stigma associated with failure. Their public needs to be educated to understand that, in the high-tech world at least, experimentation and risk-taking are the paths to success; that success is often preceded by one or more failures. This must be discussed frequently by political leaders and taught in schools. They should establish venture funds for entrepreneurs who are starting their second or third businesses after failing.

Innovation and growth result from courage, risk-taking, and opportunity. Japan, and countries offering similar discouragement to their potential entrepreneurs, won’t see significant innovation and economic growth until they appreciate entrepreneurs’ human qualities and build on them.

Editor’s note: Guest writer Vivek Wadhwa is an entrepreneur turned academic. He is a Visiting Scholar at UC-Berkeley, Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School and Director of Research at the Center for Entrepreneurship and Research Commercialization at Duke University. You can follow him on Twitter at @vwadhwa and find his research at www.wadhwa.com.

Japan: To Fix Your Economy, Honor Your Failed Entrepreneurs

I’ve had an interesting few days trying to track down exactly what is and isn’t going on with Yahoo and Groupon.

One source earlier this week said that a $1.7 billion acquisition was all but done, but Groupon’s management team balked and killed the deal. That’s certainly juicy and consistent with Yahoo’s failure to acquire Yelp and Foursquare.

Another source close to Yahoo said much the same thing, but suggested the price was higher, north of $2 billion.

None of it adds up though. Groupon was valued at $1.35 billion earlier this year. A sale in the $2 billion range would mean that Groupon sees a major problem in their business model. Otherwise, they’d be in it for the long haul.

And in fact the information from these two separate sources is probably incorrect. A source close to Groupon tells me that there haven’t been any serious acquisition discussions with Yahoo at all, and for Groupon to even consider an acquisition would require $3.5 billion or more. Clearly, Yahoo would have a lot of trouble completing an acquisition of that size.

Also, we’ve checked with some of the other usual suspects who’d likely be bidding against Yahoo in a Groupon acquisition. They’ve not heard a thing.

We have confirmed that Groupon and Yahoo are working on a large distribution deal of some kind. A smaller deal is already in place, but something much bigger is coming in the next few weeks. Deals with eBay and Citysearch are probably also being signed.

But for now, no acquisition. Either because discussions never happened (most likely) or because Groupon management balked at being part of Yahoo.

Getting To The Bottom Of The Crazy Yahoo-Groupon Rumors

There were two surreal moments for me at Disrupt last week. The first was during the SV Angels Party when Hammer was dancing. It wasn’t just because MC-Freaking-Hammer was doing to Hammer dance in a tux and nerd glasses in front of me. It was because the CEO and founder of the media company I work for were on stage looking awkward and white, but dancing none the less. It was because I’ve hung out with Hammer at parties and conferences like the Lobby– two unlikely people sucked in to the Web 2.0 vortex. It was because I ran into the founders of Digg, separately and in different rooms at the party. They were like brothers the first time I met them, and now– no matter what they politely say on stage– they were estranged, with one ousted and the other trying to turn the once-hot company that helped start the Web 2.0 wave around. It was a feeling that something was ending.

The feeling was echoed the next day watching Kevin Rose and Michael Arrington on stage. For my corner of the Web 2.0 world these were two of the most seminal figures. I put Rose on the cover of BusinessWeek at the beginning of the wave, an article that got me a book deal that ensured I’d spend the next year surrounded by people like Max Levchin, Peter Thiel, Mark Zuckerberg and others. And Arrington was the only other reporter I knew back then who wasn’t a total cynic about Web 2.0 companies’ chances. Eventually I’d find we were so like-minded that I wanted to work with Mike– finally leaving my old-media roots behind. One word has summed both of these guys for a while now: Tired.

The first wave of Web companies never got here, most grew so fast they went public or raised an unsustainable amount of money, hiring an unsustainable amount of employees and when the spigot of free capital was gone they had no choice but to implode. But that didn’t happen in Web 2.0– precisely because it had happened so recently in the late 1990s. People like Kevin and Mike were cautious. They ran their businesses at break even, raised money cautiously, and outsourced business processes– like ad sales and even some underlying technology– that weren’t core to the business. For all the talk about a second Web bubble, most of the companies on covers of magazines were pretty conservatively run. As a result they had plenty of money in the bank when the recession hit. Sure there were employees cut here or there, but most of that was to get rid of people who were underperforming or make a show of belt tightening for investors.

But it was still a wave, an unsustainable ride of hope, big dreams, a feeling of invincibility that had to crash– and for me, mostly ended last week when TechCrunch was sold. But the recession didn’t crash this one– exhaustion did. Building media companies– which is what most Web 2.0 businesses are– is a grind. You can’t build a huge business with less than 20 million monthly uniques and getting there is a brutal day-in, day-out grind of producing great work, making the site as intuitive as possible and continually finding reasons to remind people you are worth 5 minutes of their day everyday. This is the part of the story we don’t tell enough on TechCrunch. We make startups sound easier and more glamorous than they are. Everyone in the game knows that–but we probably do a disservice to people who think all they need is a Super Angel and in two years they’ll get a deal from Google.

On stage Mike asked Kevin what the most amount of money he’d walked away from was and he said $80 million. Mike asked if Kevin regretted not taking it, and he didn’t really answer the question. It was clear from his body language that at least part of him did. In that moment, they looked like two men both slightly jealous of each other– one because the other said yes and one because the other said no.

In any Silicon Valley wave there are the clear huge winners– Facebook and likely Twitter and Zynga. There are a few clear huge businesses, and I’d argue LinkedIn is in that category. And loads of companies that are clever-but-doomed. And then there are a bunch where we just don’t know. They are clearly worth something, in the case of Slide or TechCrunch and, hopefully, Digg they’re worth enough that the founders who worked so hard for so long make a life-changing amount of money. But in some ways, when these founders finally succumb to the grind, it’s almost sadder for those of us who were along on the journey– whether investors, employees, friends or just users of their sites.

I remember the day when the Industry Standard– the magazine that chronicled the 1990s bubble and held weekly rooftop parties– went out of business. I covered the news for the tiny weekly business journal I wrote for back then, and drove up to San Francisco as employees were forlornly cleaning out their offices– all of them. It reminded me of the last day at college, when everyone takes every scrap of their life out of a dormroom never to return. I did an interview with the Editor that made me feel like an ambulance chaser. His dream was in shambles all around him and his staff of hundreds were out of jobs. Media people are impossible at faking how they feel. I couldn’t do it when TechCrunch announced it was selling, and this guy couldn’t do it now. One of his star writers told me it was like that scene in Goodfellas where the crew feels on top of the world like they own a town– and then they get sloppy and everything goes to hell.

Back at the Hammer party, it was my Goodfellas moment, albeit a far less dramatic one. I didn’t have an office to pack up and we all still have jobs, but I couldn’t help feeling like it was all over. Not TechCrunch or Digg or Facebook or the other companies we associate with the wave, but the wave itself. It has crashed on a beach of exhaustion, and people who said they’d never sell for less than $1 billion doing just that. More of it is coming.

TechCrunch has been unlike any other media organization for which I’ve worked– whether newsweekly, magazine, television, or big media portal. We could all leave in three years and start another one but it won’t be the same, Web companies are organic things shaped by a million little small decisions and dozens of people who pass through that companies life every day. There’s a magic that catches or doesn’t. Business professors and journalists can later dissect what companies did right, but frequently at the time pivotal decisions were a fluke.

There’s an endless debate about the good and bad of selling a company that’s still growing in the Valley right now. There’s the obvious macro-economic answer: Everyone selling too early is bad, because no new tech giants are created. There’s the obvious micro-answer: A few million dollars is life changing for most people, and those entrepreneurs deserve to make a life-changing amount of money. In a lot of ways, Disrupt was in the middle of that debate all week. The same Michael Arrington who called out investors who just fund “dipshit $40 million companies” sold his company for a reportedly similar figure the next day. Like most people, I find both arguments compelling. But the important thing to know is this: You can do it again, but you will never create the same company twice.

At that Hammer party I ran into a friend who has built several successful companies– and always refused to sell at their headiest point. He asked me what I thought of the AOL deal. I asked what he thought. He laughed and said, “You’re talking to someone who has managed to evade seven successful exits, don’t ask me.” Yeah. That sums up the end of the Web 2.0 era angst.

If Web 1.0’s Kryptonite Was the Bust, Web 2.0 Kryptonite Was the Grind

]]> http://www.invisionskins.net/if-web-1-0%e2%80%99s-kryptonite-was-the-bust-web-2-0-kryptonite-was-the-grind/feed/ 0 http://www.invisionskins.net/buy-and-sell-your-unused-groupon-like-coupons-on-lifesta-disrupt-startup-alley/ http://www.invisionskins.net/buy-and-sell-your-unused-groupon-like-coupons-on-lifesta-disrupt-startup-alley/#comments Sat, 02 Oct 2010 15:19:11 +0000 admin http://invisionskins.net/buy-and-sell-your-unused-groupon-like-coupons-on-lifesta-disrupt-startup-alley/

What happens when that $145 tandem skydiving coupon you bought doesn’t seem like a good idea anymore? Or what if you can’t use it because you’re just bogged down with work? Fear not! Now you don’t have to let it go to waste… New site Lifesta.com has launched a daily deal exchange where Groupon-like coupons can be bought and sold.

Self-describing itself as ‘StubHub for daily deals,’ Lifesta helps folks buy deals they missed or sell vouchers they won’t use. Lifesta manages the entire transaction, from payment to voucher handover. No communication is required between buyers and sellers and if for some reason a buyer bought an invalid voucher, Lifesta will refund them their money. This by the way, has only happened a couple of times. In both instances due to the business having closed down. (Groupon had refunded the original sellers).

It’s not that people aren’t buying and selling daily deal coupons today, it’s that they do it through bulletin boards, which only fulfill the posting aspect, leaving voids for the actual transaction facilitation and the voucher handover. Plus, you also have to deal with back-and-forth emails and phone calls until the handover is complete.

With Lifesta, everything is much more seamless: Sellers upload their vouchers (usually PDF or image) and set their price. Buyers then browse for their desired voucher, pay online and download the voucher.

Eran Davidov, Lifesta’s CEO would not disclose specific numbers, but did say that since its launch in July, the site has been growing 50% month-over-month, both in the number of uploaded vouchers for sale, and in total sales.

CrunchBase Information

Lifesta

Information provided by CrunchBase

Buy and Sell Your Unused Groupon-like Coupons on Lifesta [Disrupt Startup Alley]

]]> http://www.invisionskins.net/buy-and-sell-your-unused-groupon-like-coupons-on-lifesta-disrupt-startup-alley/feed/ 0 http://www.invisionskins.net/with-beta-launch-live-matrix-doubles-content-providers-tctv/ http://www.invisionskins.net/with-beta-launch-live-matrix-doubles-content-providers-tctv/#comments Tue, 14 Sep 2010 06:25:42 +0000 admin http://invisionskins.net/with-beta-launch-live-matrix-doubles-content-providers-tctv/

As the web becomes increasingly saturated with video, flash sales, auctions and live streams, there’s a growing need for a major portal to filter and organize this flood of incoming data in real time. One contender is Live Matrix, a TechCrunch Disrupt alum that is trying to index every live event on the web. While Live Matrix has been described as the web-version of TV Guide, founders Sanjay Reddy and Nova Spivack, are shooting for a more ambitious distinction: the Google for the “time dimension of the web.”

Spivack says, “We’re trying to show what’s when on the web—- we think Google and other search engines today show you what’s where on the web—- we’re trying to show you what’s happening in time.”

The founders took one step towards that lofty mission on Sunday evening, with their official beta launch. Although they are still waiting for traffic numbers to roll in, the founders told us that the number of content providers (which includes flash sales sites, like Gilt Groupe, to sports news programs, like ESPN3, and everything in between) has more than doubled with 300 new sign-ups in less than 12 hours. Before the launch, the site had 200 providers and was serving up roughly 100,000 live events per week.

However, even if that 100,000 turns to 200,000 in short order, that’s still a modest sliver of the “live” web. Of what’s on there, it can be difficult to find compelling, relevant options and the search function isn’t quite perfect yet. For example, a search of “Live Matrix” should theoretically pull up the homepage’s featured event: “Live Matrix Official Beta Launch,” instead I got something titled “Creating and Using A Salary Increase Matrix.”

Reddy and Spivack recognize the long slog ahead. Since Disrupt, the pair have tried to increase personalization, refine the user interface and enhance the portal’s usability. For the next release, due later this year, they will beef up the recommendation feature, search functionality, and continue to improve personalization, which they see as key to relevance. For the content providers, Reddy and Spivack hope to accumulate enough data, aka users and traffic, to create a premium analytics service. According to Spivack, this will eventually include predictive analytics that will tell providers what kind of audience (size and demographics) they can expect for future events.

For my full interview with the founders of Live Matrix, see video above. The co-founders defend their business model and elaborate on what we can expect from future iterations.

CrunchBase Information

Live Matrix

Sanjay Reddy

Nova Spivack

Information provided by CrunchBase

With Beta Launch, Live Matrix Doubles Content Providers (TCTV)

]]> http://www.invisionskins.net/with-beta-launch-live-matrix-doubles-content-providers-tctv/feed/ 0 http://www.invisionskins.net/tempted-by-the-dark-side-opencandy%e2%80%99s-bundled-app-installs-now-offering-opt-out/ http://www.invisionskins.net/tempted-by-the-dark-side-opencandy%e2%80%99s-bundled-app-installs-now-offering-opt-out/#comments Sat, 11 Sep 2010 18:40:01 +0000 admin http://invisionskins.net/tempted-by-the-dark-side-opencandy%e2%80%99s-bundled-app-installs-now-offering-opt-out/

Years ago, I came to the conclusion that bundled software — those applications that piggyback alongside the applications you’re actually trying to install — are the spawn of the devil. They often trick users into installing software they don’t want (they’re the reason millions of people installed WeatherBug years ago when they really didn’t mean to). So when I first heard about OpenCandy, a startup that actually facilitates the distribution of bundled software, my initial reaction was, “Yech“.

“No, we’re the good guys!” they said, explaining that they were only distributing high quality software, and that users would always have to opt-into downloading a piggybacking app, which meant that there wasn’t a chance that they’d accidentally install something. And I warmed up to them, watching as they worked with a number of respectable companies and eventually closed a $5 million funding round from Google Ventures. Alas, it seems that they’re trading in their halo for a bigger market.

For those that aren’t familiar with it, OpenCandy is a service that lets application developers generate more money from their apps. Developers add a small piece of code provided by OpenCandy to their install process. Then, when a user installs the developer’s software, they’re prompted to install a second, promoted application that’s served up by OpenCandy’s recommendation algorithm. Before now a user would only install this promoted software if they explicitly clicked a box indicating that they wanted to — there was almost no chance of it happening accidentally, which is what shadier app bundles rely on.

This week OpenCandy is announcing that it’s going to offer developers the option to make these bundled app installs opt-out. In other words, if the developer chooses to make an opt-out offer in their installer, it will be up to the user to manually uncheck a box if they don’t want to install whatever software OpenCandy is hawking, which is exactly what OpenCandy said it wasn’t doing. Ugh.

I spoke with OpenCandy CEO Darrius Thompson, who says that the company had the same reaction when it first considered the idea. Asked if OpenCandy is doing this to make more money, Thompson claims that the answer is “no” — he says that OpenCandy is making the change because the data supports it as a fair thing to do. Here’s a portion of the explanation he’s posted on the company blog:

We are a metrics driven company and data strongly influences our decisions. When we started OpenCandy, we assumed that users who opted-in to software offers were more likely to use that product than users who did not opt-out. It’s an assertion we’ve been trying to validate since day one. We’ve studied this carefully and, with the help of our partners, we’ve found that users who opt-in are only slightly more likely to use the software than those who do not opt-out. It’s a little confusing but essentially means that even though more users get software through opt-out than opt-in, they still end up using it at about the same rate. This is not what we expected, but it is what the data has shown, and has various implications for our business.

Numerous developers have asked us to support opt-out so they could earn more money and advertisers have asked the same so that they could reach more users. By allowing our partners to choose opt-in or opt-out, we can help them do this in the best way possible. Keep in mind that opt-out offers are enabled only when both the advertiser and the developer involved with a given offer chose to do so. We have always held ourselves and our partners to a high standard when it comes to transparency and protecting users. Our Network Policy (link) is one of the ways we enforce this. http://www.opencandy.com/software-network-policies/

Despite what Thompson says, this will obviously have a positive impact on OpenCandy’s bottom line, and it’s hard to believe that the company based its decision independent of that fact. This will expand OpenCandy’s potential market to a new set of developers, and it will generate more revenue as more users install budled software.

That said, OpenCandy isn’t really evil (at least, it’s no worse than its competition). The stats OpenCandy has reported are certainly counterintuitive and seem to indicate that these opt-out installers may not be that bad. Users can cancel the OpenCandy download manager if they accidentally agree to install an application (provided they click ‘Cancel’ before the app is finished downloading). More noble developers out there can still elect to make their installs opt-in (advertisers can also choose to only allow their apps to be opt-in). And plenty of big companies offer their software in a similar opt-out fashion.

Finally, in the hopes of retaining its “good guy” status, the company says that it’s keeping the Opt-in/Opt-out dialog clear (see the screenshot above), and it’s exploring ways to make sure users don’t accidentally opt into software they don’t want (for example, they are considering defaulting to ‘opt-in’ if the user is obviously just rapidly clicking through the installer).

CrunchBase Information

OpenCandy

Information provided by CrunchBase

Tempted By The Dark Side, OpenCandy’s Bundled App Installs Now Offering Opt-Out

]]> http://www.invisionskins.net/tempted-by-the-dark-side-opencandy%e2%80%99s-bundled-app-installs-now-offering-opt-out/feed/ 0 http://www.invisionskins.net/path-snags-digg%e2%80%99s-matt-van-horn-as-vp-of-biz-dev-approaches-launch/ http://www.invisionskins.net/path-snags-digg%e2%80%99s-matt-van-horn-as-vp-of-biz-dev-approaches-launch/#comments Thu, 26 Aug 2010 22:46:43 +0000 admin http://invisionskins.net/path-snags-digg%e2%80%99s-matt-van-horn-as-vp-of-biz-dev-approaches-launch/

Digg Head of Business Development Matt Van Horn is leaving Digg to move over to the “stealthish” startup Path as VP of Business Development. This Friday will be his last day at Digg, which just this week announced its V.4 redesign.

From Van Horn’s announcement email to colleagues:

When I graduated college in 2006, it was a crazy dream to move to the bay area and join a tech start-up. So I took it upon myself to stalk Kevin and crew repeatedly until they created a position for me. It’s now been more than three years since I started here and I have learned so much and am so grateful for the chance that everyone took in bringing me on board. This has been the opportunity of a lifetime and I am excited for what the future has in store for Digg and will continue to support it in any way I can.

After this Friday, I will be joining up with Dave Morin, Shawn Fanning and Dustin Mierau on a new stealthish project called Path. I used to work with Dave at Apple and I’m excited to be working with him on this new project. We haven’t announced what we’re doing yet, but it’s going to start on the iPhone – you can sign up for more information at Path.com.

The latest we heard about the much buzzed about list-making service was a tweet from investor Ashton Kutcher about his Path anticipation, until today.

From Path CEO and former Facebooker Dave Morin,

“Matt’s focus on distributing the Digg brand throughout the internet makes him a perfect fit for Path as we turn our eye towards launch. At Path we are focused on building a beautiful experience through great design and a focus on quality. We think that Matt will approach the partnerships and relationships that we build with design in mind and are excited to welcome him to the Path team.“

Key takeaway from Van Horn’s email: Path will be launching on the iPhone first. Stay tuned for updates.

CrunchBase Information

Matt Van Horn

Information provided by CrunchBase

Path Snags Digg’s Matt Van Horn As VP Of Biz Dev, Approaches Launch

]]> http://www.invisionskins.net/path-snags-digg%e2%80%99s-matt-van-horn-as-vp-of-biz-dev-approaches-launch/feed/ 0 http://www.invisionskins.net/facebook-wants-advertisers-to-help-build-out-its-directory-of-places/ http://www.invisionskins.net/facebook-wants-advertisers-to-help-build-out-its-directory-of-places/#comments Thu, 19 Aug 2010 03:13:15 +0000 admin http://invisionskins.net/facebook-wants-advertisers-to-help-build-out-its-directory-of-places/

As we heard tonight, Facebook has officially launched Places, the social network’s location-based platform. We know what Places will mean for Facebook users. Users will be able to check-in to Places (created by both people and businesses) via the web or through mobile apps. And the feature has an API so partners like Foursquare, Gowalla, Yelp and Booyah can allow their users to check-in to Facebook’s places. But what does this mean for businesses? Interestingly, Facebook seems to actively be targeting advertisers on the network. It is already distributing a how-to guide for registering a Place page for their businesses, the benefits and more. You can find the guide here and we’ve embedded the document below.

Facebook is wasting no time encouraging advertisers to start registering their businesses. The social network may be starting from behind, but it wants to ramp up its directory quickly and is encouraging advertisers to create their own Places Here’s how Facebook markets Places to advertisers in its how-to guide:

Places creates a presence for your business’s physical store locations- encouraging your customers to share that they’ve visited your business by “checking in” to your Place. When your customer checks into your Place, these check-in stories can generate powerful, organic impressions in friends’ News Feeds, extending your brand’s reach to new customers.

Of course, many advertisers and businesses may be confused about the need for both a Page and a Place. But those can be merged. However, Facebook says that not all advertiser Pages and Places can be merged at this time and those businesses who should merge, will be contacted directly by Facebook.

One incentive that Facebook is using to encourage businesses to create a Places page is advertising. Facebook says that “Once you claim your Place, you’ll be able to advertise it just as you advertise your Facebook Page. To advertise your Place, click “I want to advertise something I have on Facebook” in the ad creation flow and choose your Place from the drop-down menu.” Advertising is completely self serve and seems fairly simple. Currently, you cannot target people who check-in to your Place, but a business can target people who ‘Like’ your Place page if you have performed a Page to Place merge.

With these sorts of incentives and a potentially hot new feature that’s will be put in front of hundreds of millions of Facebook members, what advertiser and business wouldn’t want to create a Places page? Many businesses have already been flocking to Facebook as both and advertising and marketing platform, and now they can have their address, map, phone number, PLUS all the public social activity that is going on at a location. A merged Places page will include a considerable amount of information, including the number of check-ins, who checked-in to a place, number of Likes, the Places’ Wall, and more.

And by creating a social directory of local businesses, Facebook can turn on another massive revenue stream. We know that ad spending on Facebook is expected to be around $1.3 billion in 2010 but Places could boost this significantly as Places lets Facebook tap into the market for local advertising.

Of course, the race to create a widespread directory of places is already full of competitors. Between AOL’s Patch, IAC’s CityGrid, and even Google Places, technology giants are seeing the inherent value and revenue that come from having such a platform. But Facebook has two things that Google, AOL, and IAC cannot buy: a fast growing social user base of 500 million members worldwide and advertisers who are flocking in droves to spend money on the network.

View this document on Scribd

CrunchBase Information

Facebook

Information provided by CrunchBase

Facebook Wants Advertisers To Help Build Out Its Directory of Places

]]> http://www.invisionskins.net/facebook-wants-advertisers-to-help-build-out-its-directory-of-places/feed/ 0