Author Archive
In the Interest of Disclosure
As a company, we haven’t been shy about sharing our opinions on topics of interest, linking to interesting blogs online, or recommending books to read or software development tools to use.
But we have been hesitant to make money from our website or from blogging in any other way than by selling our software product, also called Infovark.
Many other start-ups sell books or seminars or advertise related products on their websites — it’s a matter of survival in this tough economy — but we’ve always felt that it would somehow dilute our message and our company focus.
We’re also a bit worried that our reviews and recommendations would seem less honest if we joined any partner or affiliate programs. I think it’s a healthy trend that more and more bloggers are disclosing these relationships, and that readers are becoming more comfortable with them.
So, in an effort to help subsidize our coding (and reading) habits, we’ve signed up for the Amazon affiliate program, and we’ll be linking our book reviews through Amazon from now on. If you buy a book from via one of these links or from the Infovark bookstore, you’ll send a nice bonus our way. We’d sure appreciate it.
And we’ve had a CafePress account for some time. We use it to make some of the swag we take to conferences. Buying a button, sticker or T-shirt from our Infovark shop will also help us continue our Infovark experiment, by giving us some free advertising and a small percentage of the item’s price.
I’ll add both these disclaimers to our about page, and I’ll also describe our participation in the Microsoft Partner Program.
And now, back to our irregularly scheduled varkiness.
State of the Internet
Here’s a list of Internet and social media statistics from late 2009 and early 2010 in animated infographic form. Found via Information Aesthetics and Flowing Data.
JESS3 / The State of The Internet from Jesse Thomas on Vimeo.
Gee, this crazy World Wide Web thing might be catching on…
Why Enterprise 2.0 Will Fail
Scott Gavin recently listed the Top 3 Business Benefits of Enterprise 2.0 inside the company firewall.
- Personal Information/Knowledge Management
- Expertise Identification
- Collective Intelligence
I was glad to see someone discuss the internal benefits, because the E2.0 conversation lately has focused on the external benefits — how E2.0 can help marketing and sales.
The case for organizations reaching out to their audiences via social media is easy to make. If you want to improve your outreach efforts, you either have to go where the people are or create an inviting place for people to gather.
The case for E2.0 inside the firewall is considerably more difficult. As Tom Davenport points out, is essentially the case for what used to be called Knowledge Management, or KM. The term KM fell out of favor with consultants and analysts because it didn’t deliver enough of these benefits. There are a lot of folks hoping that flexible, easy-to-use “2.0″ applications might succeed where centrally managed KM failed.
But it likely won’t, because most E2.0 vendors are doing it wrong.
If the #1 benefit is personal knowledge management, why are all the big players selling to the CEO, CIO, and IT departments? Where are the tools targeting individual knowledge workers?
Missing in action
I can think of two reasons why we haven’t seen a flowering of office productivity applications.
1. The Free Brigade — Companies don’t think they can make money from ordinary people anymore. Even if software companies came up with killer applications that helped people manage their daily tasks, email and files, they don’t think they would be able to get people to pay for it. Perhaps their software will get pirated. Maybe some college students will throw together a free and/or open source version that will destroy their market. Or — the most common reason I’ve heard — is simply that employees don’t expect to pay for software they use at work.
2. The Microsoft Effect — Microsoft owns the corporate desktop computing environment. Period. Software vendors fear to challenge the hegemony of the Office Suite, afraid that they will suffer the fate of Word Perfect or Netscape or any number of other products and vendors that have tried, and failed, to break Microsoft’s lock on desktop computing. Despite the fact that Microsoft Office applications have been around for more than 15 years (an eon in software industry) and despite the fact that they have known deficiencies for managing information that the Content Management and Knowledge Management industries have exploited for years, there has been little or no direct competition in this space.
The Enterprise 2.0 distortion field
These two factors cause all Enterprise 2.0 vendors to compromise in one of two ways.
- While promising personal benefits to knowledge workers, they actually take their marching orders from senior management, who purchase the software.
- While promising to help individuals with their daily flow of information, they live in fear of deploying software to workstations and laptops, where all information is received and all the work is actually performed.
This means that most Enterprise 2.0 Software vendors violate at least two of Andrew McAfee’s criteria for an Enterprise 2.0 tool: Freeform, frictionless, and emergent.
Because many of these tools have a management bias, and will subordinate individual initiative to central control, they sacrifice being freeform and emergent. Because many of these tools will be based in the cloud to avoid the tyranny of the Microsoft desktop and corporate IT, they sacrifice the frictionless flow of information inside the firewall.
Ironically, the companies that actually deliver best on the E2.0 promise are ones that would never consider themselves enterprise software.
More Patent Foolishness
I seem to have software patents on the brain lately. After I wrote about our decision not to move forward with Infovark’s provisional patent, several recent articles and blog posts have caught my attention.
What started the latest round of software industry soul-searching was an article in the Harvard Business Review written by Nathan Myrhvold regarding his company, Intellectual Ventures. It’s called The Big Idea: Funding Eureka. His company aims to make money from enforcing patent rights created by both in-house and independent inventors. You can read a recent profile of Intellectual Ventures and its strategy in the New York Times.
I didn’t know about Intellectual Ventures at the time I wrote our blog post, but it’s exactly the sort of company I was thinking about when I described the collect ‘em, trade ‘em patent game. Intellectual Property lawyers call it a Non-Practicing Entity or NPE, but most folks in software and technology would call it a patent troll.
Big tech companies have a lot of time, money and effort invested in their patent portfolios, and they are very worried about the impact companies like Intellectual Ventures will have on innovation.
The venture capital community is also concerned. Brad Burnham of Union Square Ventures thinks that software patents are the problem, not the answer. Other prominent VC bloggers, like Fred Wilson and Brad Feld, agree.
Changes in the wind?
It looks like the idea of software patent reform is gathering momentum. Business method patents, like Amazon’s famous “one-click” shopping cart patent, have always seemed wrong to me. I also dislike the idea of software patents in general. A computer is fundamentally a machine for doing math. If mathematical formulas are not patentable, why should software be?
But it’ll be a long, hard road to get the law changed. And there’s only so much change that a reinterpretation of existing law, like the In re Bilski case, can bring about.
For one thing, investors must be persuaded to stop putting a premium on businesses and start-ups with patents pending. Companies that have patents must stop using them as competitive weapons — ways to tangle and trip up their competitors in red tape. Accountants must stop treating patents as a corporate asset or as capital.
Ultimately, companies will still pursue patents so long as they have a financial incentive to do so. And the companies that own patents have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. Even some of the VCs that back patent reform admit that they advise their portfolio companies to protect what they can.
There are enormous incentives to play by the rules, even when the rules themselves are broken.
