Tag Archives: Internet

Review of Without Their Permission

Posted on by

I was inspired to begin writing again by reading Alexis Ohanian of reddit fame’s debut book, titled “Without Their Permission” for those that were regular readers and know me are aware of my interest in the startup community, technology, and activism during the SOPA/PIPA days. So reading this book happily fell into many of those interests.

First of all, this book was entertaining. It’s a rather self aware book and in some cases the humor of it reminded me of Drew Curtis’s book “It’s not News it’s Fark” which is a humorous book that really pokes fun at mainstream media. There’s some of that in this book, but it’s much more playful and selfaware of how important the media has been to Alexis’s success.

During my Master’s thesis research I read a lot of scientific studies that looked at the types of businesses, industries, education, and so forth of founders. Which really focused on the technical skills of the founders. This book didn’t. Alexis wasn’t the technical brains behind reddit, he was the “other stuff” that helped make reddit reddit. I believe that this is a fantastic view point to bring to the conversation on start ups, incubators, accelerators, etc… because it’s something that’s missing.

I have to say at first while reading the book I was really annoyed by the line “every link is created equal” because in any network this simply isn’t try. Any unconnected link is equal, but as soon as the Internet is the Internet links become less equal because of interconnectedness of the Internet. At first this prevented me from enjoying the book because I was so focused on this, however after working 8 hours I forgot about it until it was mentioned later. I only bring this up, because a large portion of the book is spent discussing how important networking is to the success of a startup. It became clear to me that Alexis gets it.

I also found this book enjoyable because it is much less self congratulatory about the Internet entrpreneurs than other books such as Makers, the New industrial revolution, Micro Wikinomics and Macro Wikinomics which cover very similar topics and ideas. In fact any time it felt to be getting too overly optimistic Alexis would point out that everything comes from hard work. It’s work that almost everyone can do, but it takes dedication.

Alexis points out a lot of successes that he’s been involved with as an investor, which provide a lot of great anecdotal experience as well as a graduate’s perspective from the Y-Combinator. I think these views are all helpful as we begin to look for more unique ways to fund startups beyond the traditional VC method.

Finally, I enjoyed the section about SOPA/PIPA which was interesting as I was actively involved on reddit and blogging to inform others about what was happening. Some of that included sharing the interviews Alexis did during that time period.

In general this book is definitely a great introduction to a more realistic view of Internet entrepreneurship from a successful founder, a great introduction to many unique startups out there that are very inclusive, and a great introduction to SOPA/PIPA for people that weren’t paying attention.

Get out there and make something great happen.
5/5

Stuxnet, Flame and security

Posted on by

First of all, I’d like to thank all my readers, I’ve had over 10,000 views in my first year of blogging. That’s amazing and is so many more views than I expected to ever have. Thank you for making it well worth my time to blog!

Recently a friend of my asked me to comment about the latest cyber attack, Flame, uncovered by Kaspersky, a Russian security firm. It’s still not entirely certain who unleashed the attack, but at the time I argued that it could have been Israel acting alone as they have a very capable tech sector. They put out high quality software, they have security experts and they have some serious R&D from US companies like MS and Intel.

Flame targeted Iranian computer systems, very much like Stuxnet did. At the time, it was unclear who released Stuxnet, which attacked Iranian centrifuges. It could have very easily been Israel acting alone or with some help from the US. Being a realist I fully expected the US to be involved, however I did not expect Obama to have issued the order himself. Based on history it is equally likely that Flame was initiated by the US as well.

Flame targeted data being sent over the internet such as PDF, Office and AutoCAD data and did not actively attack anything like Stuxnet did, according to Kaspersky. However, this doesn’t mean that it’s not being used by a spy agency. It’s also interesting to note that the infected computers are all outside of the US, which indicates that it could very easily be a US spy agency as they are not usually allowed to spy on US citizens.

These two programs leave me with a great deal of concern, because “the Pentagon has concluded that computer sabotage coming from another country can constitute an act of war, a finding that for the first time opens the door for the U.S. to respond using traditional military force.” Does this mean that if Iran responded with military force that our own Pentagon would argue that they were justified? I don’t think they would, but essentially they already have.

Aside from the risks of war it also gives greater leverage for a regime like Iran’s to argue for a more suppressed internet. They can now without any worry claim that they are doing it for national security. They are doing it for that reason, their centrifuges have been attacked (Stuxnet) and their people are being spied on (Flame). In addition other repressive regimes will likely use Flame as justification as a crack down on the internet. There may also be repercussions for Microsoft as Flame exploited a weakness within their auto update.

This also raises other concerns about what other types of cyber programs Obama has given the OK to. As he is the most technically savvy president we’ve had since the rise of the Internet, I think he fully understands the choices he is making. With Bush it may have been argued that he didn’t really understand as well what he was approving as he doesn’t have an in depth knowledge of how people use the internet and how systems interact with technology. He also wouldn’t have a good understanding of how viruses like this could turn against their creators. In this case Obama should. He should know that once in the wild a worm can mutate in a way that could turn against the people that released it and that we could destroy ourselves.

I think that these actions will weaken our position in any negotiations with Iran and possibly other countries that we have pushed for a more open internet. They could, rightly perhaps, argue that we only want the internet open, so it’s easier for us to infiltrate.

I don’t believe that’s the reason. I believe that the internet is the an amazing tool that has improved people’s condition to at least some extent. It has allowed for freer flowing of knowledge, but it can be used for wrong just as easily as any other media or communication tool.

Facebook, IPO and valuing a company

Posted on by

This week we’ve been hearing about the debacle that was the Facebook IPO.Which has revealed that some of the underwriters for the IPO were doing shady things. Matt Taibbi believes that this indicates that there are essentially two markets. One for the insiders and one for the schumcks, the every day investors.

Why is this important? Well, based on the discussions I’ve read online, there’s a lot of concern of the validity of the whole IPO process, the valuation methods of companies and how investors think of companies. The valuation of Facebook had a great deal of discussion before the final IPO price of $38/share, this was partially driven by two articles that came out. In the first one it was mentioned that GM was pulling it’s account because “Facebook ads don’t work.” The other article of note relates that researchers found that 44% of Facebook users will NEVER click an ad. This research is important because some of the valuation is based on the conversion rates of ad views to ad clicks. On average Facebook was only able to earn around $4.34 per user. The valuation of $100 billion puts the life time earning potential per user at $100 (at 1 billion users). This is pretty low, but at the same time, if only 560 million users ever click ad, that pushes means the people that do click ads need to be earning Facebook roughly $200.

MIT Technology Review discusses how this is an unsustainable growth model for Facebook. Essentially, Facebook will begin to drive down the cost per view for their advertisers to try to increase their total revenue. This falls into the race to the bottom mentality that crushes industries. Advertisers will be able to say to any website, why should we pay you x amount per ad when we only pay Facebook y there is no way that you can get me more views than Facebook. The only way that a site could get more revenue if they can show data for a higher click through and conversion rates than Facebook. That might be tough. The Review article argues that this will eventually kill Facebook and a lot of the ad driven website business models.

The other aspect of the IPO is a difference in the way that business and technology media are reporting on Facebook. Things have shifted from all the non-business related activities to focusing solely on this aspect of Facebook. This will likely shift over time, but I believe that these considerations will be discussed in any article related to Facebook. If Facebook wants to remain a haven for activists it will be difficult if there are potential suits over people being activists. There will be an increase of risk aversion within the “owners” of the company as there will be influence from investors.

Zuckerberg has said that he plans on doing what is best for the long term and try to ignore the demands of investors. He might be able to do that because he still owns 57% of the voting rights for the company. However, it will be difficult for him to avoid the influence of the discourse of media outlets. Even if he gets all his news from his friends on Facebook, there will likely be articles posted that will give him news about the company and things that he probably won’t want to read.

Essentially, discussions will shift from being about the risk of privacy for users to how changes to Facebook will impact investors bottom line. I don’t think this is healthy for businesses, consumers of Facebook or the general public. There are other things companies do that are unrelated to investors that are important for society as a whole. The Facebook coverage really indicates that we don’t look at businesses in a long term sustainable manner. We need to change this if we want to save capitalism.

Continual improvement, Innovation and Modularity

Posted on by

I’ve been reading Internet Architecture and Innovation which has gotten me to think a great deal about system’s architecture and innovation (shocking I know), but it has also gotten me to think about continual improvement as well. The perspective that Schewick takes for innovation in a system is actually based off of stock options. If you aren’t aware there are two types of options. Each is used in a different circumstance to sell at a certain price or to buy at a certain price. This has been used in some innovation theories for a while it’s called real options, or taking financial options and using them in a similar situation in real life. The differences is that it’s a go/no go choice instead of buy/sell. In terms of innovation it would be a choice between pursuing a new innovation in a system or not. For example. Let’s say you have a watch and you are trying to improve the time on the watch. Using the reals option approach you could figure out how much money you’d have to have for a return on your investment in the innovation, per watch, and figure out how many different types of crystals you would test to improve the timing mechanism. Another example could be a car, where you’re trying to reduce the drag on the car, which could dramatically change the full shape of the car. Whereas with a watch you may only be changing the crystal. 

Essentially, what this means is that you have two different ways of innovating within a system. Change the full system (car) or change a single module of the system (watch). Reducing the drag on a car could require a full system overall, because you’ll be changing the size of the front end, which could impact the maximum size of the engine (or shape of the engine), or could impact the maximum headroom of the vehicle. So, you could have a radically different looking vehicle from model to model. In fact we can see this if we look at the evolution of the car (below). This change is extremely expensive and requires a huge amount of work. It’s not likely that a company would pursue multiple designs beyond the drawing board or initial mockups. It would simply be too expensive to build multiple prototypes that are fully functional.
Evolution of Lamborghini
With watches you could have the exact same watch with several different materials to ensure the watch keeps proper time. In terms of watches there have been several radical innovations, including the wristband and digital. However, if the watch is not digital, the changes in some parts of the watch are extremely easy to test and compare on the market. For instance many pocket watches use rubies to protect the metal pieces in a watch from rubbing against each other. In this case it’s possible to test many different gems to protect the components, it’s also extremely cheap and if something fails completely it would never move into production. However, you could test hundreds of types of gems (sizes or whatever), at a significantly lower cost than testing many different full system designs.
So what’s the difference between the two? In this case we’re changing a full system compared to a module within the full system. Of course changing the gear structure of a watch would require a full redesign, but there are many parts that can be changed independently. In many aspects this can happen with a car, but there are limitations as well.
This modularity allows designers to innovate on separate aspects of the product without decreasing the quality of the overall system. This same idea can be applied in other business settings in terms of rapid and continual improvement processes. Many business processes are systems that integrate many different groups and aspects. Splitting the system into modular components allows continual improvement on many different aspects of the system at the same time. This modularity decreases the cost of improving individual aspects of the system as well as allows for more improvement projects throughout the system. 
Why would the costs be lower? Well, as I mentioned with the watch, it’s cheaper to test different components for the gems, time keeping crystal and face glass than to test a change in drag for a car. The change in drag could require changes to the seat heights, new design for the windshields, possibly an entirely new chassis. In the case of reduced drag, if the design works you may have to redesign all these other components. In the case of the watch finding out that the new glass face doesn’t work wouldn’t impact which crystal works best. This reduces the costs for testing the improved system.

A bit remiss

Posted on by

Sorry dear readrs, I’ve been very bad about writing any blogs lately. I’ve had some pretty big changes in the past two months as you all know. I’ve moved back from the Netherlands to the US, did some consulting work and I just started a job at AMD. Consequently, I’ve not been able to post as much as I have in the past. Big changes have been happening in my life.

Because of these changes I wasn’t able to pay enough attention to the CISPA fiasco that just occurred in the US. This law is a terrible step in the direction of data tyranny. I’m even being hyperbolic about this either. I wrote about the risks of having a voluntary data sharing program and in my review of Consent of the Networked I discussed the different data and Government regimes out in the “wild.” These concerns are valid. We need to be aware of what’s going on. Now, I have to say we pretty much blew our collective internet protest load with the SOPA/PIPA protests. Which is actually a problem. I would hazard that in many ways CISPA is as bad or worse than SOPA, however I didn’t see as much chatter about CISPA on reddit, twitter, Google+ or Facebook about CISPA as I did about SOPA.

I think there are a few reasons for this actually. First, the majority of the people were able to clearly understand the risks associated with SOPA. These risks are pretty straight forward and understandable. These risks affect us tomorrow not in some future time period. In many ways SOPA like acts can already happen today. This makes it extremely obvious why SOPA/PIPA are terrible laws and should be opposed at many levels. Second, with CISPA coming so quickly after the SOPA/PIPA protests there was likely something of a protest overload or disbelief that another law could come through so quickly that is as bad or worse than SOPA. Especially with the language that was being used at the time of SOPA. It would have broken the Internet, how could anything be worse than that? Third, there was more support by large companies for this law than for SOPA. Apparently that actually matters more than we realized. We were able to push Wikipedia, Facebook, and other large companies to protest this law. However in this case Facebook and Microsoft supported the law while Google sat on the sideline saying nothing about the law.

I think from this stand point, people that weren’t happy with CISPA but didn’t understand the importance likely didn’t do anything about it. However, whenever a fantastic website like Wikipedia blacks out in protest for a law it will get people who are only on the fence about the law to actually do something about the law.

CISPA and SOPA are both bad but in very different ways. CISPA is something of an abstraction of risk. Losing your privacy when so many people already voluntarily give up so much information about themselves on Facebook and Twitter might not seem like as big of a deal. The secondary abstraction is a lack of understanding of the impact of the data sharing. It’s unclear of what exactly the Feds would do with the data once they have it. It’s unclear how data sharing would occur within the government. However, it is likely that the data would be shared throughout the government including the military. Which many privacy experts are say essentially legalizes military spying on US civilians. The third problem is that many people also feel that if you aren’t doing something wrong you don’t have anything to worry about. However, this is a fallacy as even people who are doing things that aren’t wrong can get in trouble. I’ve discussed the cases where people are fired for posting drunken pictures on Facebook. Additionally, this type of law represents the biggest of the big government that we can imagine. There’s no reason why the government needs to know what we’re doing in this level of detail.

It’s going to be a long and difficult fight to keep our internet free. However, it’s something that we must do and I believe we can do it. We will just need to keep vigilant and work together to ensure that our internet stays our internet.