Platforms succeed when they are 1) financially sustainable, and 2) have a sufficient number of developers that are financially sustainable. Fostering a successful developer community means convincing developers (and, possibly, investors in developers) that the platform is a worthwhile investment of time and money.

Developers who create applications for platforms take on all the usual risks related to launching a new product, but in addition take on platform-specific risks, namely:

1. Platform decline: the platform will decline or go away entirely.
2. Subsumption risk: the platform will subsume the functionality of the developer’s application.

The most successful platforms try to mitigate these risks for developers (not just the appearance of these risks). One way to mitigate platform decline risk is to launch the platform after the platform’s core product is already successful, as Facebook did with its app platform and Apple did with its iOS platform. Platforms that are not yet launched or established can use other methods to reassure developers; for example, when Microsoft launched the first Xbox they very publicly announced they would invest $1B in the platform.

To mitigate subsumption risk, the platform should give developers predictability around the platform’s feature roadmap. Platforms can do this explicitly by divulging their product roadmap but more often do it implicitly by demonstrating predictable patterns of feature development. Developers and investors are willing to invest in the iOS platform because – although Apple will take 30% of the revenue – it is highly unlikely that Apple will, say, create games to compete with Angry Birds or news to compete with The New York Times. Similarly, Facebook has thus far stuck to “utility” features and not competed with game makers, dating apps, etc.

Platforms that are controlled by for-profit businesses that don’t yet have established business models have special challenges. These companies are usually in highly experimental modes and therefore probably themselves don’t know their future core features. The best they can do to mitigate developers’ risks are 1) provide as much guidance as possible on future features, and 2) when developer subsumption is necessary, do so in a way that keeps the developer ecosystem financially healthy – for example, by acquiring the subsumed products.

The least risky platforms to develop on are successful open platforms like the web, email, and Linux. These platforms tend to change slowly and have very public development roadmaps. In the rare case where a technology is subsumed by an open platform, it is usually apparent far in advance. For example, Adobe Flash might be subsumed by the canvas element in HTML5, but Adobe had years to see HTML5 approaching and adjust its strategy accordingly. The predictability of open platforms is the main reason that vast amounts of wealth have been created on top of them and investment around them continues unabated.

One common strategy for establishing this initial relationship is what is sometimes known as the “thin edge of the wedge” strategy (aka the “tip of the spear” strategy).  This strategy is analogous to the bowling pin strategy: both are about attacking a smaller problem first and then expanding out.  The difference is that the wedge strategy is about product tactics while the bowling pin strategy is about marketing tactics.

Sometimes the wedge can be a simple feature that existing companies overlooked or saw as inconsequential. The ability to share photos on social networks was (strangely) missing from the default iPhone camera app (and sharing was missing from many third-party camera apps like Hipstimatic that have popular features like lo-fi camera filters), so Instagram and Picplz filled the void. Presumably, these startups are going to try to use mobile photo sharing as the wedge into larger products (perhaps full-fledged social networks?).

Sometimes the wedge is a “single player mode” – a famous example is early adopters who used Delicious to store browser bookmarks in the cloud and then only later – once the user base hit critical mass – used its social bookmarking features. Other times the wedge lies on one side of a two-sided market, in which case the wedge strategy could be thought of as a variant of the “ladies night” strategy. I’m told that OpenTable initially used the wedge strategy by providing restaurants with terminals that acted like simple, single-player CRM systems. Once they acquired a critical mass of restaurants in key cities (judiciously chosen using the bowling pin strategy), opentable.com had sufficient inventory to become useful as a one-stop shop for consumers.

Critics sometimes confuse wedge features with final products. For example, some argue that mobile photo sharing is “just a feature,” or that game mechanics on geo apps like Foursquare are just faddish “toys.” Some go so far as to argue that the tech startup world as a whole is going through a phase of just building “dinky” features and companies. Perhaps some startups have no plan and really are just building features, likely with the hope of flipping themselves to larger companies. Good startups, however, think about the whole wedge from the start. They build an initial user base with simple features and then quickly iterate to create products that are enduringly useful, thereby creating companies that have stand-alone, defensible value.

Hold on a second. Are you super sure you want to import your contact information for your friends into a service that won’t let you get it out?

Facebook allows users to download their personal information (photos, profile info, etc) but has been fiercely protective of the social graph (you can’t download friends, etc). The downloaded data arrives in a .zip file – hardly a serious attempt to interoperate using modern APIs (update: Facebook employee corrects me/clarifies in comments here). In contrast, Google has taken an aggressively open posture with respect to the social graph, calling Facebook’s policy “data protectionism.”

The economic logic behind these positions is a straightforward application of Metcalf’s law, which states that the value of a network is the square of the number of nodes in the network*.  A corollary to Metcalf’s law is that when two networks connect or interoperate the smaller network benefits more than the larger network does. If network A has 10 users then according to Metcalf’s law its “value” is 100 (10*10).   If network B has 20 users than it’s value is 400 (20*20). If they interoperate, network A gains 400 in value but network B only gains 100 in value. Interoperating is generally good for end users, but assuming the two networks are directly competitive – one’s gain is the other’s loss – the larger network loses.

A similar network interoperability battle happened last decade among Instant Messaging networks. AIM was the dominant network for many years and refused to interoperate with other networks. Google Chat adopted open standards (Jabber) and MSN and Yahoo were much more open to interoperating. Eventually this battle ended in a whimper — AIM never generated much revenue, and capitulated to aggregators and openness.  (Capitulating was probably a big mistake – they had the opportunity to be as financially successful as Skype or Tencent).

Google might very well genuinely believe in openness. But it is also strategically wise for them to be open in layers that are not strategic (mobile OS, social graph, Google docs) while remaining closed in layers that are strategic (search ranking algorithm, virtually all of their advertising services).

When Google releases their long-awaited new social network, Google Me, expect an emphasis on openness. This could create a rich ecosystem around their social platform that could put pressure on Facebook to interoperate. True interoperability would be great for startups, innovation, and – most importantly – end users.

* Metcalf’s law assumes that every node is connected to every node and each connection is equally valuable. Real world networks are normally not like this. In particular, social networks are much more clustered and therefore have somewhere between linear and exponential utility growth with each additional user.

Businesses that target two-sided markets are extremely hard to build but also extremely hard to compete against once they reach scale. Tech businesses that have created successful two-sided markets include Ebay (sellers and buyers), Google (advertisers and publishers), Paypal (buyers and merchants), and Microsoft (Windows users and developers). In some cases individuals/institutions are consistently on one side (buyers and merchants) while in other cases they fluctuate between sides (Ebay sellers are also often buyers).

In almost every two-sided market, one side is harder to acquire than the other. The most common way to attract the hard side is the ladies’ night strategy: reduce prices for the hard side, even to zero (e.g. Adobe Flash & PDF for end-users), or below zero (e.g. party promotors paying celebrities to attend). Rarer ways to attract the hard side is 1) getting them to invest the platform itself (e.g. Visa & Mastercard), and 2) interoperating with existing hard sides (e.g. Playstation 3 running Playstation 2 games).

If you are starting a company that targets a two-sided market you need to figure out which side is the hard side and then focus your efforts on marketing to that side. Generally, the more asymmetric your market the better, as it allows you to market to each side more in serial than in parallel.

The next step in this evolution is to create web services that are both federated (APIs) and extensible (Apps).

In my ideal world, the social graph would not be controlled by a private company. That said, Facebook, to its credit, has aggressively promoted a fairly open API through Facebook Connect. Facebook has also been a leader in promoting Apps. For Facebook, creating extensible, federated services would mean providing a framework for Facebook Connect Apps – apps that extend Facebook functionality but reside on non-Facebook.com websites.

Consider the following scenario.  Imagine that in the future a geolocation data/algorithm provider like SimpleGeo takes Facebook Places check-in data and, using algorithms and non-Facebook data, produces new data sets, for example: map directions, venue recommendations, and location-based coupons. The combination of Facebook’s data (social graph and check-ins) and SimpleGeo data/algorithms would create much more advanced feature possibilities than either service acting alone.

With today’s APIs, if, say, Gowalla wanted to integrate Facebook plus SimpleGeo into their app*, they would basically have 3 choices:

1) Embed Facebook widgets in Gowalla.  These are simple iframes (effectively separate little websites) that don’t interact with SimpleGeo.  Gowalla would just have to sit and wait and hope that Facebook decided to bake in SimpleGeo-like functionality.

2) Pre-import SimpleGeo data. This significantly limits the size and dynamism of the SimpleGeo data sets and doesn’t incorporate SimpleGeo algorithms, thus severely limiting functionality.

3) Host an instance of SimpleGeo’s servers internally.  This requires heavy technical integration, undermining the main benefit of APIs.

In a world of extensible APIs (or “API Apps”), Gowalla could instead send Facebook data back to SimpleGeo.  The data flow would look something like this:

(Note how there are three parties involved – @peretti calls this a “data threesome”). This configuration is much simpler to integrate – and potentially much more powerful and dynamic – than the other configurations listed above.  You could implement this today, but it would create user experience challenges.  For example, Gowalla would be sending Facebook data to a 3rd party (step 3), which might (depending on the data sent) require explicit user opt-in. Things become more onerous if SimpleGeo wanted to share its own user data with Gowalla. That would require an additional oAuth to SimpleGeo (authorizing step 4).

Allowing websites to be federated and extensible will open up a whole new wave of innovation.  Ideally some spec like oAuth could include the multiple authorizations in a single authorization screen.  Facebook could also do this by allowing 3rd parties to be part of the Facebook Connect authorization process.  Inasmuch as Facebook’s seems to be trying to embed their social graph as deeply as possible into the core experiences of other websites, allowing extensible APIs would seem to be a smart move.

* I have no connection to any of these companies (Facebook, Gowalla, SimpleGeo) and have no knowledge of their product plans beyond their public websites.  I am imagining functionality that Gowalla and SimpleGeo might include someday but for all I know they have no interest in these features – I just picked them somewhat arbitrarily as examples.

In the web 1.0 world (approximately pre-2004), integrating two web services involved lots of manual work, such as negotiating legal contracts and custom technical integration. Creating these kinds of partnerships is usually referred to as “business development” or “BizDev” (personally, I usually just call it “BD”). In the web 2.0 world, it became common for websites to create fully functional, self-service API’s with standardized legal terms. This made it possible to drastically reduce the friction of integrating services. My Hunch cofounder Caterina Fake coined the term “BizDev 2.0″ to refer to this idea (and of course Flickr was a pioneer of super robust APIs).

There is no question that removing legal and technical hurdles is a win for everyone (except lawyers). However, unless your service is extremely high profile and its value is easily understood, it still needs to be marketed to potential partners. Many websites won’t consider using a self-service API until they’ve seen it working on other sites with measurable results. So how do you overcome this particular kind of chicken-and-egg problem?

During his interview process, Hunch’s Shaival Shah, said something that struck a chord with me: he didn’t want to be called “VP BizDev” because, he said, a good BizDev person makes BizDev irrelevant. The idea is to create a number of BizDev 1.0 partnerships while simultaneously building and marketing a full service API.  If you can do BizDev 1.0 with some number of (ideally high profile) websites and demonstrate that it is valuable to them (ideally quantitatively), you can then scale your service BizDev 2.0 style. Maybe this could be called BizDev 1.5.

Shaival wrote up a much more detailed post on self-cannibalizing BizDev that is well worth reading.

Facebook executed the bowling pin strategy brilliantly by starting at Harvard and then spreading out to other colleges and eventually the general public.  If Facebook started out with, say, 1000 users spread randomly across the world, it wouldn’t have been very useful to anyone.  But having the first 1000 users at Harvard made it extremely useful to Harvard students.  Those students in turn had friends at other colleges, allowing Facebook to hop from one school to another.

Yelp also used a bowling pin strategy by focusing first on getting critical mass in one location – San Francisco – and then expanding out from there.  They also focused on activities that (at the time) social networking users favored: dining out, clubbing and shopping. Contrast this to their direct competitors that were started around the same time, were equally well funded, yet have been far less successful.

How do you identify a good initial niche?  First, it has to be a true community – people who have shared interests and frequently interact with one another.  They should also have a particularly strong need for your product to be willing to put up with an initial lack of content. Stack Overflow chose programmers as their first niche, presumably because that’s a community where the Stack Overflow founders were influential and where the competing websites weren’t satisfying demand. Quora chose technology investors and entrepreneurs, presumably also because that’s where the founders were influential and well connected. Both of these niches tend to be very active online and are likely to have have many other interests, hence the spillover potential into other niches is high. (Stack Overflow’s cooking site is growing nicely – many of the initial users are programmers who crossed over).

Location based services like Foursquare started out focused primarily on dense cities like New York City where users are more likely to serendipitously bump into friends or use tips to discover new things. Facebook has such massive scale that it is able to roll out its LBS product (Places) to 500M users at once and not bother with a niche strategy.  Presumably certain groups are more likely to use Facebook check-ins than others, but with Facebook’s scale they can let the users figure this out instead of having to plan it deliberately. That said, history suggests that big companies who rely on this “carpet bombing strategy” are often upended by focused startups who take over one niche at a time.

Your #1 competitor starting out will always be the BACK button, nothing else. – Garry Tan

Suppose you have an idea for a startup, and then do some research only to discover there are already similar products on the market. You become disheartened and wonder if you should abandon your idea.

In fact, the existence of competing products is a meaningful signal, but not necessarily a negative one.  Here are some things to consider.

1) Almost every good idea has already been built. Sometimes new ideas are just ahead of their time. There were probably 50 companies that tried to do viral video sharing before YouTube. Before 2005, when YouTube was founded, relatively few users had broadband and video cameras. YouTube also took advantage of the latest version of Flash that could play videos seamlessly.

Other times existing companies simply didn’t execute well. Google and Facebook launched long after their competitors, but executed incredibly well and focused on the right things. When Google launched, other search engines like Yahoo, Excite, and Lycos were focused on becoming multipurpose “portals” and had de-prioritized search (Yahoo even outsourced their search technology).

2) The fact that other entrepreneurs thought the idea was good enough to build can be a positive signal. They probably went through some kind of vetting process like talking to target users and doing some market research. By launching later, you can piggyback off the work they’ve already done. That said, you do need to be careful not to get sucked into groupthink. For example, many techies follow the dictum “build something you would use yourself,” which leads to a glut of techie-centric products. There are tons Delicious and Digg clones even though it’s not clear those sites have appeal beyond their core techie audience.

3) That other people tried your idea without success could imply it’s a bad idea or simply that the timing or execution was wrong. Distinguishing between these cases is hard and where you should apply serious thought. If you think your competitors executed poorly, you should develop a theory of what they did wrong and how you’ll do better. Group buying had been tried a hundred times, but Groupon was the first to succeed, specifically by using coupons to track sales and by acquiring the local merchants first and then getting users instead of vice versa. If you think your competitor’s timing was off, you should have a thesis about what’s changed to make now the right time. These changes could come in a variety of forms: for example, it could be that users have become more sophisticated, the prices of key inputs have dropped, or that prerequisite technologies have become widely adopted.

Startups are primarly competing against indifference, lack of awareness, and lack of understanding — not other startups. For web startups this means you should worry about users simply not coming to your site, or when they do come, hitting the BACK button.

Ask anyone who ran or invested in a mobile app startup pre-iPhone (I invested in one myself). Since the carriers had all the power, getting any distribution (which usually meant getting on the handset “deck”) meant doing a business development deal with the carriers. Business development in this case meant finding the right people at those companies, sending them iPods, taking them to baseball games, and basically figuring out ways to convince them to work with you instead of the 5,000 other people sending them iPods and baseball tickets.  The basis of competition was salesmanship and capital, not innovation or quality.

The carriers had so much power because consumers made their purchasing decisions by choosing a carrier first and a handset second. Post-iPhone, tens of millions of people started choosing handsets over carriers. People like me suffer through AT&T’s poor service and aggressive pricing because I love the iPhone so much.

I’ve talked to a number of mobile app startups lately who say their former contacts at the carriers are shell shocked: no one is knocking on their doors anymore. I guess they have to buy their own iPods and baseball tickets now.

Yes, Apple has rejected some apps for seemingly arbtrary or selfish reasons and imposed aggressive controls on developers. But the iPhone also paved the way for Android and a new wave of handset development. The people griping about Apple’s “closed system” are generally people who are new to the industry and didn’t realize how bad it was before.

It is in Facebook’s economic interest to extract most of Zynga’s profits, leaving them just enough to keep investing in games and advertising. Last year’s reduced notification change seemed like one move in this direction as it forced game makers to buy more ads instead of getting traffic organically. This probably hurt Zynga’s profitability but also helped them fend off less well-capitalized rivals. Facebook could also hold up Zynga by entering the games business itself, but this seemed unlikely since thus far Facebook has kept its features limited to things that are “utility like.”

The way Facebook now seems to be holding up Zynga – requiring Zynga to use their payments system –  is particularly clever.  First, payments are still very much a “utility like” feature, and arguably one that benefits the platform, so it doesn’t come across as flagrant hold up. It is also clever because – assuming Facebook has insight into Zynga’s profitability – Facebook can charge whatever percentage gets them an optimal share of Zynga’s profits.

The risk for Zynga is obvious — if they don’t diversify their traffic sources very soon, they are left with a choice between losing profits and losing their entire business.  But there is a risk for Facebook as well. If buyers of traffic (e.g. app makers) fear future hold up, they are less likely to make investments in the platform. The biggest mistake platforms make isn’t charging fees (Facebook) or competing with complements (Twitter), it’s being inconsistent.  Apple also charges 30% fees but they’ve been mostly consistent about it. App makers feel comfortable investing in the Apple platform and even having most of their business depend on them in a way they don’t on Facebook or Twitter.

(Eisenmann acknlowledges the iPhone isn’t fully open to the end user – in the US you need to use AT&T, etc.  I would argue the iPhone is semi-open to the app developer and mobile app development was effectively closed prior to the iPhone. But the main point here is that platforms can be open & closed in many different ways, at different levels, etc.)

The next important distinction is whose interest you are considering when asking what and when to open or close things.  I think there are at least 3 interesting perspectives:

The company: Lots of people have written about this topic (Clay Christensen, Joel Spolsky, more Eisenmann here).   In a nutshell, there are times when a company, acting solely in its self-interest, should close things and other times they should open things.  As a rule of thumb, a company should close their core assets and open/commoditize complementary assets. Google’s search engine is their core asset and therefore Google should want to keep it closed, whereas the operating system is a complement that they should commoditize (my full analysis of what Google should want to own vs commoditize is here). Facebook’s social graph is their core asset so it’s optimal to close it and not interoperate with other graphs, whereas marking up web pages to be more social-network friendly (open graph protocol) is complementary hence optimal for FB to open.  (With respect to social graphs interoperating (e.g. Open Social), it’s generally in the interest of smaller graphs to interoperate and larger ones not to – the same is true of IM networks).  Note that I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with Google and Facebook or any other company keeping closed or trying to open things according to their own best interests.

The industry: When I say “what is good for the industry” I mean what ultimately creates the most aggregate industry-wide shareholder value.  I assume (hope?) this also yields the maximum innovation.  As an active tech entrepreneur and investor I think my personal interests and the tech industry’s interests are mostly aligned (hence you could argue I’m talking my book).  Unfortunately it’s much easier to study open vs. closed strategies at the level of the firm than at the level of an industry, because there are far more “split test” cases to study.  What would the world be like if email (SMTP) were controlled by a single company?  I would tend to think a far less innovative and wealthy one. There are a number of multibillion dollar industries built on email: email clients, webmail systems, email marketing, anti-spam, etc.  The downside of openness is that it’s very hard to upgrade SMTP since you need to get so many parties to agree and coordinate.  So, for example, it has taken forever to add basic anti-spam authentication features to SMTP.  Twitter on the other hand can unilaterally add useful new things like their recent annotations feature.

Here’s what Professor Eisenmann said when I asked him to summarize the state of economic thinking on the topic:

With respect to your question about the impact of open vs closed on the economy, the hard-core economists cited in my book chapter have a lot to say, but it all boils down to “it depends.” Closed platform provides more incentive for innovation because platform owner can collect and redistribute more rent and can ensure that there’s a manageable level of competition in any given application category. Open platform harnesses strong network effects, attracting more application developers, and  thus stimulates lots of competition. There’s some interesting recent work that suggests that markets may evolve in directions that favor the presence of one strong closed player plus one strong open player (consider: Windows + Linux; iPhone + Android). In this scenario, society/economy gets best of both approaches.

Society:  I tend to think what is good for the tech industry is generally good for society.  But others certainly have different views.  Advocates of openness are often accused of being socialist hippies.  Maybe some are.  I am not.  I care about the tech industry.  I think it’s reasonable to question whether moves by large industry players are good or bad for the industry.  Unfortunately most of the debate I’ve seen so far seems driven by ideology and name calling.

Twitter’s moves this week were particular interesting.  A lot of third-party developers were unhappy. I think this is mainly a result of Twitter having sent mixed signals over the past few years. Twitter’s move into complementary areas was entirely predictable – it happens with every platform provider. The real problem is that somehow Twitter had convinced the world they were going to “let a thousand flowers bloom” – as if they were a non-profit out to save the world, or that they would invent some fantastic new business model that didn’t encroach on third-party developers. This week Twitter finally started acting like what it is: a well-financed company run by smart capitalists.

This mixed signaling has been exacerbated by the fact that Twitter has yet to figure out a business model (they sold data to Microsoft & Google but this is likely just one-time R&D purchases). Maybe Twitter thinks they know what their business model is and maybe they’ll even announce it soon. But whatever they think or announce will only truly be their business model when and if it delivers on their multi-billion dollar aspirations. It will likely be at least a year or two before that happens.

Normally, when third parties try to predict whether their products will be subsumed by a platform, the question boils down to whether their products will be strategic to the platform. When the platform has an established business model, this analysis is fairly straightforward (for example, here is my strategic analysis of Google’s platform).  If you make games for the iPhone, you are pretty certain Apple will take their 30% cut and leave you alone. Similarly, if you are a content website relying on SEO and Google Adsense you can be pretty confident Google will leave you alone. Until Twitter has a successful business model, they can’t have a consistent strategy and third parties should expect erratic behavior and even complete and sudden shifts in strategy.

So what might Twitter’s business model eventually be?  I expect that Twitter search will monetize poorly because most searches on Twitter don’t have purchasing intent.  Twitter’s move into mobile clients and hints about a more engaging website suggest they may be trying to mimic Facebook’s display ad model. (Facebook’s ad growth is being driven largely by companies like Zynga who are in turn monetizing users with social games and virtual goods.  Hence it’s no surprise that a Twitter investor is suggesting that developers create social games instead of “filling holes” with URL shorteners etc.) Facebook’s model depends on owning “eyeballs,” which is entirely contradictory to the pure API model Twitter has promoted thus far.  So if Twitter continues in this direction expect a lot of angst among third-party developers.

Hopefully Twitter “fills holes” through acquisitions instead of internal development. Twitter was a hugely clever invention and has grown its user base at a staggering rate, but on the product development front has been underwhelming.  Buying Tweetie seemed to be a tacit acknowledgement of this weakness and an attempt to rectify it. Acquisitions also have the benefit of sending a positive signal to developers since least some of them are embraced and not just replaced.

What’s Facebook doing during all of this?  Last year, Facebook seemed to be frantically copying Twitter – defaulting a lot of information to public, creating a canonical namespace, etc. Now that Twitter seems to be mimicing Facebook, Facebook’s best move is probably just to sit back and watch the Twitter ecosystem fight amongst itself.  As Facebooker Ivan Kirigin tweeted yesterday: “I suppose when your competition is making huge mistakes, you should just stfu.”

Disclosure: As with everything I write, I have a ton of conflicts of interest, some of which are listed here.

But there is an additional problem:  even among sites that monetize via sponsored links there is a large overallocation of advertising spending on links that are near the “end of the purchasing process” (or “end of the funnel”). For example, an average camera buyer takes 30 days and clicks on approximately 3 sponsored links from the beginning of researching cameras to actually purchasing one.   Yet in most cases only the last click gets credit, by which I mean:  1) if it’s an affiliate (CPA) deal, it is literally usually the case that only the last affiliate (the site that drops the last cookie) gets paid, 2) if it’s a CPC or CPM deal, most advertisers don’t properly track the users across multiple site visits so simply attribute conversion to the most recent click, causing them to over-allocate to end-of-funnel links 3) if it’s a non-sponsored link (like Google natural search links) the advertiser might over-credit SEO when in fact the natural search click was just the final navigational step in a long process that involved sponsored links along the way.

What this means is there are two huge misallocations of advertising dollars online: the first from intent generators to intent harvesters; the second from intent harvesters that are at the beginning or middle of the purchasing process to those at the end of the purchasing process.  This is not just a problem for internet advertisers and businesses – it affects all internet users.  Where advertising dollars flow, money gets invested. It is well known that content sites are suffering, many are even on their way to dying. Additionally, product/service sites that started off focusing on research are forced to move more and more toward end-of-funnel activities.  Take a look at how sites like TripAdvisor and CNET have devoted increasing real estate to the final purchasing click instead of research.  For the most part, you don’t get paid for the actual research since it’s too high in the funnel.

As with all large problems, this misallocation of advertising dollars also presents a number of opportunities.  One opportunity is for advertisers to correctly attribute their spending by tracking users through the entire purchasing process (in the case of cameras, the full 30 days and multiple sponsored clicks).  Very likely, these sites are currently overpaying end-of-funnel sites (e.g. coupon sites) and underpaying top-of-funnel sites (e.g. research sites). There is also an opportunity for companies that provide technology to help track this better. Finally, if over time advertising dollars do indeed shift to being correctly allocated, this will allow research sites to be pure research sites, content sites to be pure content sites, etc instead of everyone trying to clutter their sites with repetitive, “last click” functionality.

Normally stacks are constructed from the bottom up and some layers turn out to be valuable and others do not (Christensen argues compellingly that stacks tend to alternate between commodity and non-commodity layers).

The PC is a famous stack.  In the 80′s and 90′s the most valuable layers were the processor (Intel won), OS (Microsoft won), and applications (Microsoft mostly won with Office). Assembly of desktops became a commodity which Dell exploited (you can still make profits on commodity layers, you just need to take a low-cost strategy). The PC demonstrates how hard it is to predict which layers will become valuable: otherwise IBM would never have allowed Microsoft to own the OS.

The internet is another famous stack. In the 90′s a ton of investment went into the infrastructure layer – switches, fiber, CDNs etc. Innovation on that layer continues (particularly in wireless), but mostly the action has moved up the stack to web apps.

An interesting new, emerging stack is the “geo stack.”  The first layer is latitude/longitude location detection. This is mainly provided by satellites and GPS chips which seem to be getting so affordable they will be in every mobile device soon.

The next layer is connecting lat/long to human-understandable locations. Google Maps, NAVTEQ etc. do this by connecting lat/long to roads. Location-based apps like Foursquare, Gowalla, and Yelp do this by connecting lat/long to “venues.” It seems Gowalla is building their own venue database.  I assume Yelp has built their own.  I don’t know how Foursquare gets theirs. I suspect venue databases will become mostly a commodity as they are fairly inexpensive to build and once built mostly interchangeable.

The next layer is the relationship with the user, particularly getting a user’s permission to track her location.  Apps like Foursquare require explicit check-ins at each venue. Other apps like Loopt automatically check in for you. Building this trust relationship with users could be very valuable.

The next layer is what I’ll call “recommendations”:  giving useful advice to users based on their location.  Maps do this by providing driving direction, traffic info etc. Foursquare is doing this with “tips.” I think recommendations will be critical for geo apps to appeal to Normals.  Geo apps are currently wooing early adopters with badges, games, and the idea that you might have a serendipitous meeting with your friends at a bar.  I suspect these incentives won’t work for the broader population, but recommendations could.  Recommendation data is hard to build and vast, hence could be a very valuable layer. (I am biased here as Hunch is working on this layer).

Social graphs could be a geo layer. It’s rumored that Facebook will be adding venue check ins soon.  Facebook has by far the largest (opt in) social graph.  As the recent Google Buzz debacle demonstrated, it’s not obvious that the people you email with are the same as the people you friend on Facebook.  Perhaps the people you want to share your location with are different than the people you friend on Facebook. If so, there could emerge valuable geo-specific social graphs.

Finally, monetization could be a very valuable layer.  There are (at least) two parts to monetizing location. Getting local businesses to embrace the internet has been very slow going. Companies that make money on local businesses today (Yelp, Yext, ReachLocal) use expensive outbound calling and other “push” techniques to sign up local businesses. There remains a huge opportunity to supplant the yellow pages as the default advertising platform in local business owners’ minds. If apps like Foursquare can build up enough marketing / PR momentum that every restaurant, dry cleaner etc feels like they need to “get on Foursquare” this could finally open the floodgates for local business advertising.

The second part of monetizing location is facilitating and tracking offline purchases. 90%+ of purchases are still offline, although for many of those transactions people do research and make their decisions online. The internet doesn’t get paid for these transactions.  Companies like Milo (disclosure: I’m an investor) are doing interesting things in this space and I expect we’ll see a lot more activity on this layer soon.

With respect to requiring apps to be approved, consider the current state of the iPhone platform. There are over 100,000 apps and thus far not a single virus, worm, spyware app etc. (I don’t count utterly farfetched theoretical scenarios). As a would-be iPhone developer, I can report firsthand that the Apple approval process is a nightmare and should be overhauled. But what’s the alternative? Before the iPhone, getting your app on a phone meant doing complicated and expensive business development deals with wireless carriers. At the other end of the spectrum: If the iPhone OS were completely open, would we really have better apps?  What apps are we missing today besides viruses?

With respect to the strategic issue of tightly integrating the iPhone/iPad software and hardware, a strong case can be made that Apple’s “closed” strategy is smart. Clay Christensen has given us the only serious theory I know of to predict when it’s optimal for a company to adopt an open versus closed strategy for (among other things) operating systems. The basic idea is that every new tech product starts out undershooting customer needs and then – because technology gets better faster than customers needs go up - eventually “overshoots” them. (PC’s have overshot today – most people don’t care if the processors get faster or Windows adds new features). Once a product overshoots, the basis of competition shifts from things like features and performance to things like price.

The key difference today between desktop computers and mobile devices is that mobile devices still have a long way to go before customers don’t want more speed, more features, better battery life, smaller size, etc. Just look at all the complaints yesterday about the iPad - that it lacks multitasking, a camera, is too heavy, has poor battery life, etc. This despite the fact that Apple is now even building their own semiconductors (!) to squeeze every last bit of performance out of the iPad. Until mobile devices compete mainly on price (probably a decade from now), tight vertical integration will produce the best device and is likely the best strategy.

*It’s worth noting that Steve Jobs wasn’t the one who screwed up Apple. Jobs co-founded Apple in 1976. He was pushed out in in May 1985 when the company was valued at about $2.2B. He returned in 1996 when Apple was worth $3B. Today it is worth $187B.

The first thing to try to figure out is whether what you are building will eventually be on the incumbent’s product roadmap. The best way to do predict this is to figure out whether what you are doing is strategic for the company. (I try to outline what I think is strategic for Google here). Note that asking people who work at the incumbents isn’t very useful – even they don’t know what will be important to them in, say, two years.

If what you are doing is strategic for the incumbents, be prepared for them to enter the market at some point. This could be good for you if you build a great product, recruit a great team, and are happy with a “product sale” or “trade sale” – usually sub $50M. If you are going for this size outcome, you should plan your financing strategy appropriately. Trade sales are generally great for bootstrapped or seed-funded companies but bad if you have raised lots of VC money.

If your product is strategic for the incumbent and you’re shooting for a bigger outcome, you probably need to either 1) be far enough ahead of the curve that by the time the big guys get there you’re already entrenched, or 2) be doing something the big guys aren’t good at. Google has been good at a surprising number of things. One important area they haven’t been good at (yet) is software with a social component (Google Video vs YouTube, Orkut vs Facebook, Knol vs Wikipedia, etc).

The final question to ask is whether your product is disruptive or sustaining (in the Christensen sense).  If it’s disruptive, you most likely will go unnoticed by the incumbents for a long time (because it will look like a toy to them). If the your technology is sustaining and you get noticed early you probably want to try to sell (and if you can’t, pivot). My last company, SiteAdvisor, was very much a sustaining technology, and the big guys literally told us if we didn’t sell they’d build it. In that case, the gig is up and you gotta sell.

The reason big new things sneak by incumbents is that the next big thing always starts out being dismissed as a “toy.”  This is one of the main insights of Clay Christensen’s “disruptive technology” theory. This theory starts with the observation that technologies tend to get better at a faster rate than users’ needs increase. From this simple insight follows all kinds of interesting conclusions about how markets and products change over time.

Disruptive technologies are dismissed as toys because when they are first launched they “undershoot” user needs. The first telephone could only carry voices a mile or two. The leading telco of the time, Western Union, passed on acquiring the phone because they didn’t see how it could possibly be useful to businesses and railroads – their primary customers. What they failed to anticipate was how rapidly telephone technology and infrastructure would improve (technology adoption is usually non-linear due to so-called complementary network effects). The same was true of how mainframe companies viewed the PC (microcomputer), and how modern telecom companies viewed Skype. (Christensen has many more examples in his books).

This does not mean every product that looks like a toy will turn out to be the next big thing. To distinguish toys that are disruptive from toys that will remain just toys, you need to look at products as processes. Obviously, products get better inasmuch as the designer adds features, but this is a relatively weak force. Much more powerful are external forces: microchips getting cheaper, bandwidth becoming ubiquitous, mobile devices getting smarter, etc. For a product to be disruptive it needs to be designed to ride these changes up the utility curve.

Social software is an interesting special case where the strongest forces of improvement are users’ actions. As Clay Shirky explains in his latest book, Wikipedia is literally a process – every day it is edited by spammers, vandals, wackos etc., yet every day the good guys make it better at a faster rate. If you had gone back to 2001 and analyzed Wikipedia as a static product it would have looked very much like a toy. The reason Wikipedia works so brilliantly are subtle design features that sculpt the torrent of user edits such that they yield a net improvement over time. Since users’ needs for encyclopedic information remains relatively steady, as long as Wikipedia got steadily better, it would eventually meet and surpass user needs.

A product doesn’t have to be disruptive to be valuable. There are plenty of products that are useful from day one and continue being useful long term. These are what Christensen calls sustaining technologies. When startups build useful sustaining technologies, they are often quickly acquired or copied by incumbents. If your timing and execution is right, you can create a very successful business on the back of a sustaining technology.

But startups with sustaining technologies are very unlikely to be the new ones we see on top lists in 2020. Those will be disruptive technologies – the ones that sneak by because people dismiss them as toys.

Google makes 99% of their revenue selling text ads for things like airplane tickets, dvd players, and malpractice lawyers. A project is strategic for Google if it affects what sits between the person clicking on an ad and the company paying for the ad. Here is my rough breakdown of the “layers in the stack” between humans and the money:

Human - device – OS – browser – bandwidth –  websites - ads – ad tech – relationship to advertiser – $$$

At each layer, Google either wants to dominate it or commoditize it. (For more on the strategic move known as commoditizing the complement, see here, here and here). Here’s my a brief analysis of the more interesting layers:

Device: Desktop hardware already commoditized. Mobile hardware is not, hence Google Phone (Nexus One).

OS: Not commoditized, and dominated by archenemy (Microsoft)!!   Hence Android/Google Chrome OS is very strategic. Google also needs to remove main reasons people choose Windows. Main reasons (rational ones – ignoring sociological reasons, organizational momentum etc) are Office (hence Google Apps), Outlook (hence Gmail etc), gaming (look for Google to support cross-OS gaming frameworks), and the long tail of Windows-only apps (these are moving to the web anyways but Google is trying to accelerate the trend with programming tools).

Browser: Not commoditized, and dominated by arch enemy! Hence Chrome is strategic, as is alliance with Mozilla, as are strong cross-browser standards that maintain low switching costs.

Bandwidth:  Dominated by wireless carriers, cable operators and telcos. Very hard for Google to dominate without massive infrastructure investment, hence Google is currently trying to commoditize/weaken via 1) more competition (WiMAX via Clearwire, free public Wi-Fi) 2) regulation (net neutrality).

Websites/search (“ad inventory”): Search is obviously dominated by Google. Google’s syndicated ads (AdSense) are dominant because Google has the highest payouts since they have the most advertisers bidding. This in turn is due largely to their hugely valuable anchor property, Google.com. Acquired Youtube to be their anchor property for video/display ads, and DoubleClick to increase their publisher display footprint. On the emerging but fast growing mobile side, presumably they bought AdMob for their publisher relationships (versus advertiser relationships where Google is already dominant). The key risks on this layer are 1) people skip the ads altogether and go straight to, say, Amazon to buy things, 2) someone like Facebook or MS uses anchor property to aggressively compete in syndicated display market.

Relationships to advertisers:  Google is dominant in non-local direct-response ads, both SMB self serve and big company serviced accounts.  They are much weaker in display. Local advertisers (which historically is half of the total ad market) is still a very underdeveloped channel – hence (I presume) the interest in acquiring Yelp.

This doesn’t mean Google will always act strategically. Obviously the company is run by humans who are fallible, emotional, subject to whims, etc. But smart business should be practiced like smart chess: you should make moves that assume your opponents will respond by optimizing their interests.

Google talks a lot about openness and their commitment to open source software. What they are really doing is practicing a classic business strategy known as “commoditizing the complement“*.

Google makes 99% of their revenue by selling text ads for things like plane tickets, dvd players and malpractice lawyers. Many of these ads are syndicated to non-Google properties. But the anchor that gives Google their best “inventory” is the main search engine at Google.com.  And the secret sauce behind Google.com is the algorithm for ranking search results. If Google is really committed to openness, it is this algorithm that they need to open source.

The alleged argument against doing so is that search spammers would be able to learn from the algorithm to improve their spamming methods. This form of argument is an old argument in the security community known as “security through obscurity.” Security through obscurity is a technique generally associated with companies like Microsoft and is generally opposed as ineffective and risky by security experts. When you open source something you give the bad guys more info, but you also enlist an army of good guys to help you fight them.

Until Google open sources what really matters – their search ranking algorithm – you should dismiss all their other open-source talk as empty posturing. And millions of websites will have to continue blindly relying on a small group of anonymous engineers in charge of the secret algorithm that determines their fate.

* You can understand a large portion of technology business strategy by understanding strategies around complements. One major point: companies generally try to reduce the price of their products complements (Joel Spolsky has an excellent discussion of the topic here). If you think of the consumer as having a willingness to pay a fixed N for product A plus complementary product B, then each side is fighting for a bigger piece of the pie. This is why, for example, cable companies and content companies are constantly battling. It is also why Google wants open source operating systems to win, and for broadband to be cheap and ubiquitous. [link to full post]

There are likely multiple reasons for their different outcomes.  Joost had day-to-day management that didn’t have much startup experience.  The P2P technology that required a download made sense for chat but not for video.  The companies were started at different times:  Skype when there was far less investment in – and therefore competition among – consumer internet products.

But the really important difference was that Joost’s product had a critical input that depended on a stubborn, backward-thinking industry – video content owners.  Whereas Skype could brazenly threaten the industry it sought to disrupt, Joost had to get their blessing.  Eventually the content companies licensed some content to Joost, but not nearly enough to make it competitive with cable TV or other new platforms like Hulu and iTunes.

Real life, non-techie users care almost exclusively about “content.”  They want to watch American Idol and listen to Jay-Z. They don’t really care how that content is delivered or what platform it’s on. Which is why Joost failed, and why so many video and music-related startups have struggled. Skype, on the other hand, didn’t have significant dependencies on other companies – its content, like its technology, was truly peer to peer.

The most important question to ask before taking seed money link

The challenge of creating a new category link

Man and superman link

The new economy link

Why content sites are getting ripped off link

Software patents should be abolished link

Climbing the wrong hill link

Google and newspapers: the false choice of opting out link

New York City is poised for a tech revival link

To make smarter systems, it’s all about the data link

The one number you should know about your equity grant link

Why you shouldn’t keep your startup idea secret link

Ideal first round funding terms link

At my last startup, SiteAdvisor, we were at first consistently pigeonholed as an anti-phishing toolbar, even though what we did was help search engine users avoid spyware, spam, and scams, which (for various technical reasons) had almost no functional overlap with anti-phishing toolbars. My co-founder at Hunch, Caterina Fake, had a similar experience at Flickr.  Early on, people compared Flickr to existing photo sharing websites – Shutterfly, Ofoto, SnapFish - and found Flickr lacking in features around buying prints, sending greeting cards, etc.

Pigeonholing is one reason startups should actually welcome direct competitors.   It was only once a direct competitor to SiteAdvisor appeared that people started treating “web safety” as its own category (Walt Mossberg was the first one to legitimize the category with this article).

At my current startup, Hunch, being pigeonholed as a so-called Answers site is one of our main marketing challenges.  Hunch is a user-generated website similar to Wikipedia except, instead of creating encyclopedia entries, contributors create decision trees that help other users make choices and decisions.  For example, about 50 computer enthusiasts came together to create this decision tree about computer laptops that helps users with less expertise find the right laptop.  Hunch gets smarter over time as more people contribute to it.  So far, about 10,000 users have made 115,000 contributions to the site.  Last month, our third month after launch, over 600,000 unique visitors used those contributions to make decisions.

Many of the initial reviews of Hunch accurately reflected that Hunch is trying to create a new category of website.  Nevertheless, the tendency to pigeonhole Hunch as an Answers site remains. Answers sites allow users to ask a question and get back direct answers from other people.  There are many Answer sites including Yahoo Answers, Mahalo Answers, Vark, Answerbag, and ChaCha. These are all excellent and useful services – but have as much to do with Hunch as Ofoto had to do with Flickr.

There is no easy solution to avoid being pigeonholed.  All you can do is consistently, straightforwardly describe what you do, and then keep beating that drum over and over until the message gets through.

Some people are saying a great Droid would mean more competition amongst handsets.  But you can’t really choose a handset – you choose a handset-carrier pair.  The real innovation inhibitor in the cellular world has been the power of the carriers to dictate what devices you can use and what apps go on those devices.  Just ask an entrepreneur who tried to create handsets or cellular apps.  They are completely beholden to the whims of the carriers.

Apple has gotten very close to breaking the carrier stranglehold – just look at how many people put up with AT&T’s atrocious network to have one.  Had Verizon capitulated and accepted Apple’s presumably stringent terms in order to carry the iPhone, we might have finally started to see a true decoupling of handsets from carriers.

Finally, don’t think just because the Droid runs Android it’s going to be truly open.  Verizon knows a truly open OS – one that allows you to run Google Voice, Skype, 3rd party SMS apps – would make their network a dumb pipe.  They’ve shown in the past they won’t let that happen.

Marketing is a huge topic.  Here I just want to make the point that, for starters, you need to figure out two things:   1) how information and influence flows in your market, and 2) when and where people use and/or purchase your product.

I’ll use my last startup, SiteAdvisor, as an example.  SiteAdvisor (now called McAfee SiteAdvisor) is a consumer security product.  Most consumers don’t learn about security products on their own.  Instead, they rely on their “family/friend sysadmin” (smartest computer person they know).  These family sysadmins read technical websites and magazines.  In order to reach this audience, we performed studies on data we had collected, which led to lots of coverage, which raised our profile and bolstered our credibility.

Now to when and where people buy security products.  Most people only think about security when 1) they buy a new computer, 2) they first get internet access, or 3) they get a virus or other security problem.  The last case is actually pretty rare, so most companies focus on 1 and 2.  How do you reach people at those moments?  Through “channels” – in particular PC makers (“OEMs”) and internet providers (“ISPs”).  (For public market people:  focusing on these two channels was McAfee’s big insight in the 2000′s and how they made a comeback versus Symantec who dominates retail).

Most people don’t talk to their friends about security products so it’s very hard to do mass word-of-mouth marketing.  (Exceptions would be the beginning of the spyware epidemic around 2001-2 when AdAware got super popular via word of mouth).  So you have to understand and pitch to these channels.

These observations are specific to consumer security, but every startup should have a similar theory of how to market their product.

Contrary to all the uninformed handwringing about how Twitter is making people dumb, I find I’m reading more long form blog and newspaper content than ever.   And the stuff I’m reading is more interesting and relevant.  That’s a good thing.

Meanwhile, Google Reader has been desperately adding social features such as sharing starred posts and automatically recommending blogs.  These features are clumsy and won’t save Reader, or RSS, from its inevitable decline.

Although I’m generally happier as a user, I think all of this is bad for the internet.  Twitter isn’t an open protocol.   It’s a private company with a profit motive that has a history of unreliable service. Moreover, URL shorteners – a byproduct of Twitter – are effectively creating a second layer DNS service that is far less secure and reliable.

I know that many people have been calling for an open alternative to Twitter for a long time.  I support them, but I’m afraid it’s too late. The network effects of Twitter’s social graph are just too strong.  Not to mention its brand momentum.  But the biggest reason Twitter has won is that mainstream users don’t care enough about these “principled” objections to switch.  Do you think Ashton or Oprah cares about open protocols?  I doubt it.

But someday they will care – when the internet is less open, less reliable and less secure.

Today’s link economy is built around purchasing intent harvesting.  (Worse still, it’s all based on last click intent harvesting- but that is for another blog post).  Most of this happens on search engines or through affiliate programs.  Almost no one decides which products to buy based on Google searches or affiliate referrers.  They decide based on content sites – Gizmodo, New York Times, Twitter, etc.  Those sites generate intent, which is the most important part of creating purchasing intent, which is directly correlated to high advertising revenues.

But content sites have no way to track their role in generating purchasing intent.  Often intent generation doesn’t involve a single trackable click.  Even if there were some direct way to measure intent generation, doing so would be seen by many today as a blurring of the the advertising/editorial line.  So content sites are left only with impression-based display ads, haggling over CPMs without a meaningful measurement of their impact on generating purchasing intent.

All of this has caused a massive shift in revenues from the top to the bottom of the purchasing funnel – from intent generators to intent harvesters.  Somehow this needs to get fixed.

There is no question that, if they wanted to, Twitter could make tens of millions of dollars tomorrow, by, say, running ads or by licensing data feeds.   The big question is whether Twitter and other social media sites will figure out how to make Google-scale money and not just Facebook-scale money.  Google and Facebook get (ballpark) the same number of monthly visits to their sites.  Facebook made hundreds of millions of dollars last year and reportedly lost money.   Google made over $22B last year with huge profit margins.

The optimistic view (which I tend to hold myself) says that where people spend time, money will follow.  If people are spending all their time on Facebook and Twitter, the Proctor and Gamble’s of the world will eventually find an effective way to shift the bulk of their ad spending online.   The tacit assumption in this view is that the next 15 years will see as much business model innovation as the last 15 years.

On the other hand, what if we are mostly done creating big new business models for the web? History suggests that business model innovation is rapid right after the advent of a new medium and then slows down considerably.   If indeed it is slowing down, social media could end up like instant messaging – incredibly popular but basically lousy at monetizing.

But how will Google ever make money? There’s the rub. The company’s adamant refusal to use banner or other graphical ads eliminates what is the most lucrative income stream for rival search engines. Although Google does have other revenue sources, such as licensing and text-based advertisements, the privately held company’s business remains limited compared with its competitors’.

We now know what people were missing back then and why Google generates such massive revenues from advertising.  The lesson is that the RPMs* of online ads are directly proportional to the degree** to which the user has purchasing intent.  This is why when you search Google for “cameras” you’ll see ads everywhere (and those advertisers are paying high CPCs), but when you search for “Abraham Lincoln’s birthday” Google doesn’t even bother to show ads at all.

This is also why Nextag will have revenues this year in the ballpark of Facebook’s revenues, even though Nextag gets a fraction of the visits:

When people talk about search being a great business model (for, say, Twitter), they should distinguish between search with puchasing intent, which is an incredible business model, and search without purchasing intent, which is a terrible one.

This may change as brand advertising moves to the web.  But for now web advertising is dominated by “direct response” ads, and those are all about purchasing intent.

* RPMs = revenue per thousand impressions – can we please agree to start saying RPMs instead of CPMs or eCPMs?  :)

** degree being how close the user is to actually purchasing multiplied by the profit margin on what they are purchasing

Perhaps patents are necessary in the pharmaceutical industry.  I know very little about that industry but it would seem that some sort of temporary grants of monopoly are necessary to compel companies to spend billions of dollars of upfront R&D.

What I do know about is the software/internet/hardware industry. And I am absolutely sure that if we got rid of patents tomorrow innovation wouldn’t be reduced at all, and the only losers would be lawyers and patent trolls.

Ask any experienced software/internet/hardware entrepreneur if she wouldn’t have started her company if patent law didn’t exist.  Ask any experienced venture investor if the non-existence of patent law would have changed their views on investments they made.  The answer will invariably be no (unless their company was a patent troll or something related).

Yes, most venture-backed companies file patents (I have filed them myself), but this is because 1) patents can have some defensive value, 2) they can grease the wheels of an acquisition (mostly because big companies want a large patent portfolio for defensive purposes), and 3) occasionally failed startups will get funded by investors whose intention is to go around suing people (hence providing “downside value” for the initial investors).

Articles like this recent one in New York Times promote the urban myth that the main beneficiary of patents are lone inventors whose idea is stolen by the big guys.  I have no special knowledge of the situation referred to, but I find it hard to believe in 1995 the idea of tying GPS to mobile devices wasn’t obvious to anyone in the field.   Almost all software and technology patents that I’ve ever come across are similarly obvious to practitioners at that time.  In theory obviousness is grounds for disallowing patents, but in practice patent examiners grants tons of silly patents.

Take the case of Blackberry and NTP.   NTP is a “patent holding company” – a patent troll – whose sole purpose is to sue people.  Now, I’ve been around long enough to know that the idea of mobile email is as old as email itself.  What RIM did was they actually went and made it a reality.  They figured out how to make a simple device that people loved, how to market it, and how to convince investors to give them money for what probably at the time seemed like an overwhelmingly difficult project.  The founders of RIM are the heroes of the story.   They didn’t need to sue anyone because they built a product and made money by actually selling a product people wanted.

How did having patents help society here?  NTP never tried to build any products.  No one is claiming RIM took the idea from them.  The only beneficiaries here are a company that never built anything and a lot of lawyers.

Software/internet/hardware patents have no benefit to society and should be abolished.

What if some startup Google sought to achieve the same goal by outsourcing its data management to the telcos, say, by mounting servers in their premises to help deliver Web applications more quickly? This would be a win-win for both parties. Data that travels within a carrier’s system is cheaper to deliver than data that must be handed off between two or more carriers. Would such an arrangement be a violation of net neutrality? Google would likely shriek so.

Huh?   Pretty much every startup I know does host their web apps at telcos.  My company Hunch, for example, hosts at Level 3.  The 20 or so startups I’ve invested in all do as well.  I’ve never heard any net neutrality advocate argue against this practice.  It also sounds like he’s unfamiliar with CDNs like Akamai.  In my experience those only tend to be affordable by large, international companies, so hardly favor startups.

He also seems unaware that there is already metered pricing on the internet today – it’s just paid for on the server side, by Google, Microsoft, my company, etc.

The greatest fear of Microsoft, Amazon, eBay and Yahoo is having to plumb their deep pockets and offer competing payments to broadband carriers to speed their bits to consumers.

I’m happy to show Mr Jenkin’s our Hunch bandwidth bill or he could just go look, for example, at Rackspace’s pricing page.   Apparently he wants websites to pay twice, once to the hosting provider and again to the ISP.  At any rate, I can’t imagine how “the more you pay, the faster your site runs” could possibly favor startups over cash rich incumbents like Google and Microsoft.

On the ISP side, he repeats the common anti-net neutrality assertion that there is genuine competition between ISPs.  Maybe there is where he lives.  Where I live in Brooklyn there is only one viable choice (Time Warner Cable).  Maybe once Verizon FIOS comes to my area this will change but for now I can’t get it.  At my office in Manhattan we couldn’t get T-1 service in our building, the Verizon DSL had atrocious quality of service and we ended up with only one viable choice – Towerstream WiMax beamed from the Empire State Building.

Finally, he argues that Google, Microsoft et al are just looking after their own interests:

But usage-based pricing that would give consumers a reason to think twice before clicking on a Google-sponsored ad? It would be the end of Google’s business model.

I agree this would be the end of Google’s business model.  But it would also be the end of the business models of pretty much every startup that is ad based – the vast majority of consumer internet startups today.

Personally, I tend to think net neutrality legislation is unnecessary as true competition in the ISP space is likely and will prevent any use-based pricing from gaining traction.  I am quite sure, however, that use-based pricing by ISPs would be disastrous for internet innovation, and especially for internet startups.

In fact, especially in the technology sector, some of the most brutal competition has occurred between complements. Products are complements when they are more valuable because of the existence of one another – e.g. hotdogs and hotdog buns, PCs and operating systems.

There is inherent tension between complements.  If a customer is willing to pay $2 for a hotdog plus bun, the hotdog maker wants buns to be cheaper so he can capture more of the $2, or lower the price of the bundle and thereby increase demand.  (For a great primer on competition between complements, I highly recommend this Joel Spolsky post.  I’ve also been writing about complements, here and here).

Microsoft is famous for destroying companies that offer complementary products, either by bundling complementary apps with Windows (Windows Media Player, MSN Messenger, IE) or aggressively competing head-to-head against the most popular ones (Adobe, Intuit).  The surviving 3rd party apps are usually ones that are too small for Microsoft to care about.  The best (selfish) economic situation for a platform like Windows is lots of tiny complements that have little pricing power but that make the platform itself more valuable.

One of Google’s main complements is the web browser and desktop operating systems, which is why they built and open sourced the Chrome browser and OS.  Google’s other big complement is broadband access – hence their excursions into public Wifi and cellular spectrum.

So what does all of this have to do with Twitter?  At some point, significant (non-VC) money will enter the Twitter ecosystem.  I have no idea whether this is will be by charging consumers, charging businesses users, search advertising, sponsored tweets, licensing the twitter data feed, data from URL shorteners, or something else. But history suggests that where there is so much user engagement, dollars follow.

For the sake of argument, let’s suppose Twitter’s eventual dominant business model is putting ads by search results.   Who gets the revenue when a user is searching on a 3rd party Twitter client?   Even if Twitter gets a portion of revenue from ads on 3rd party apps, there will always be an incentive for them to create their own client app, or to “commodotize” the client app by, say, promoting an open source version.

I’m not saying this will happen in the immediate future.  First, Twitter and a lot of app makers* have raised a lot of money, so aren’t under (much) pressure yet to generate revenues.  Secondly, some of the lucky Twitter apps will get acquired by Twitter.  I think this is what many of their investors are hoping for.  But those that aren’t so lucky will eventually find their biggest competitor to be Twitter itself, not the substitute product they see themselves as competing against today.

* when I say Twitter apps, I mean any product, website, or service that eventually makes money and depends on Twitter’s API.

Secondly, I think Google itself has almost nothing to do with the decline of newspapers.  That is due to, among other things, 1) the newspapers losing their classified business to Craigslist and others, 2) the internet making geography irrelevant and hence causing newspaper competition go from 1 or 2 papers per market to thousands.

That said, I am bothered by the arguments I hear in internet circles of the form:

Premise 1:  X can stop working with Y at anytime.  (NYTimes could opt out of Google search results / Google news at any time)

Premise 2:  X would lose out if it did that (NYTimes would lose traffic and revenue if they opted out of Google).

Conclusion:   Hence Y is helping X.  (Google is helping the NYTimes and the NYTimes should stop whining.)

The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises.  The NYTimes might in fact be better off in a world without Google.  More specifically, they would be better off if the search engine market were genuinely competitive.

The power dynamics between Google and the newspapers has the same dynamics of any buyer-supplier market.

Newspapers, like all websites, are suppliers of content to Google.  In most markets, with genuinely competitive buyers and suppliers, the revenues are shared between buyers and suppliers in proportion to their relative bargaining power.  Their bargaining power depends on how fragmented each side of the market is – how many genuine alternatives each company has.

Normally there is some reasonable level of interdependence between buyers and suppliers, hence the revenue split is positive and non-negligible. Pepsi and Coke are always jostling with their bottlers about the percentage split but in the end each side usually makes a profit.

And in situations where the relative bargaining power is severely imbalanced, there are normally business mechanisms for correcting the imbalance.   For example, before Staples was founded, office supply stores were mostly mom-and-pop shops that were tiny relative to their suppliers, and hence had very little bargaining power.  The central business concept behind creating Staples was to “roll up” these shops and thereby increase their bargaining power with their suppliers.  In doing so, they were able lower their costs and increase their margins even while lowering their prices.   One of the primary reasons companies merge is to increase bargaining power with respect to buyers and suppliers.

As a “buyer” of web content, Google has incredible dominance, so much so that the price they pay for that content is zero.  If the NYTimes decided to opt out of Google tomorrow, Google users would barely notice.  (Perhaps the only content site that would matter and hence in theory could bargain with Google would be Wikipedia – but even Wikipedia only accounts for ~2% of Google click throughs).  On the flip side, the NYTimes would see a massive decrease in traffic and hence ad revenues.  Google has so much power they can split 0% of the revenue for organic traffic (and of course charge for paid links).

Now imagine a world where search engines are truly competitive.  I know it’s hard – but imagine there are say 20 search engines, each with 5% market share.  And suppose they differ primarily according to which content sites they index.  (I am not saying I’d prefer this world – I’d actually hate it – but please bear with me for the sake of argument).   On the content side, suppose there are only a couple of newspapers left – maybe the NYTimes, WSJ, USA Today, and the Financial Times (which, btw, will probably be the case in a few years).  In this situation the newspapers would have enough leverage to get the search engines to pay them for inclusion in their organic listings.  I know that in my own case if two search engines were nearly identical except one included my favorite newspaper and the other didn’t, I’d use the one that did.  I suspect a lot of other people would make the same decision.

There is nothing inherently un-monetizable about newspaper content.  Like all goods and services, if newspaper content has value to people and is scarce (it’s not scarce today but as more newspapers go out of business will become increasingly so), they can eventually generate sustainable revenue (albeit probably operating at a much smaller scale).  The revenue can come either through consumers paying directly or buyers like Google sharing revenues, or some combination thereof.

For the moment, and for the foreseeable future, newspapers (and all content sites) just happen to be in a dreadful bargaining position with respect to Google.

Of course the flaw in this reasoning is that, at the time, there weren’t many websites or apps that made good use of broadband.   This was 2002 – before YouTube, Skype, Ajax-enabled web apps and so on.  In the language of economics, broadband and broadband apps are complementary goods – the existence of one makes the other more valuable.  Broadband didn’t have complements yet so it wasn’t that valuable.

Complement effects are one of the main reasons that technology adoption is non-linear. There are other reasons, including network effects, viral product features, and plain old faddishness.

Twitter has network effects – it is more valuable to me when more people use it.  By opening up the API they also gained complement effects – there are tons of interesting Twitter-related products that make it more useful.  Facebook also has network effects and with its app program and Facebook Connect gets complement effects.

You can understand a large portion of technology business strategy by understanding strategies around complements.  One major point:  companies generally try to reduce the price of their products complements (Joel Spolsky has an excellent discussion of the topic here).   If you think of the consumer as having a willingness to pay a fixed N for product A plus complementary product B, then each side is fighting for a bigger piece of the pie. This is why, for example, cable companies and content companies are constantly battling.  It is also why Google wants open source operating systems to win, and for broadband to be cheap and ubiquitous.

Clay Christensen has a really interesting theory about how technology “value chains” evolve over time.  Basically they typically start out with a single company creating the whole thing, or most of it.  (Think of mobile phones or the PC).  This is because early products require tight integration to squeeze out maximum performance and usability.  Over time, standard “APIs” start to develop between layers, and the whole product gains performance/usability to spare.   Thus the chain begins to stratify and adjacent sections start fighting to commoditize one another.   In the early days it’s not at all obvious which segments of the chain will win.  That is why, for example, IBM let Microsoft own DOS.  They bet on the hardware.   One of Christensen’s interesting observations is, in the steady state, you usually end up with alternating commoditized and non-commoditized segments of the chain.

Microsoft Windows & Office was the big non-commoditized winner of the PC. Dell did very well precisely because they saw early on that hardware was becoming commodotized.  In a commoditized market you can still make money but your strategy should be based on lowering costs.

Be wary of analysts and consultants who draw lines to extrapolate technology trends.  You are much better off thinking about complements, network effects, and studying how technology markets have evolved in the past.

Assume you’ve come up with the “ultimate” product – the complete set of product features including both free and paid versions. Given this, many people think they need to make the following trade off:

1) more features in free version –> more users
2) fewer features in free version –> higher conversion rate from free to paid

So for example, if your consumer storage software gives away tons of free storage, the assumption is you will get more users but a lower conversion rate, as compared to a competitive product that gives away less free storage.

Actually this not the whole story, because tilting toward #2 – more features in the paid version – opens up new marketing channels that can actually get you more users. If you have a compelling paid product that isn’t undermined by a nearly as compelling free product, you can potentially profitably market through affiliate networks, SEM, display ads, bizdev partnerships and so forth. Lots of websites that reach large user bases are only interested in promoting paid products. For example, from my experience, OEMs (PC makers like Dell & HP) are only interested in offering security software that they can charge for in order to generate additional revenue.

In terms of the user experience, it is often very difficult to draw the line. In the old shareware days, software would nag you with popups or expire after a certain number of days. I don’t like either of these approaches. Nagging is obviously just annoying. And expiration schemes end up tossing out users who are potential future customers. Why not keep them around and preserve future opportunities to offer them something they find useful enough to buy?

The ideal division allows the free product to be an independently useful, non-annoying, non-expiring standalone product, while still leaving room for the paid version to offer sufficient additional value that some acceptable percentage of your users will upgrade.

Some products are fortunate enough to have a natural division point. For example, in security software, “remedial” products like anti-virus and anti-spyware often give away a free scan, and charge for clean up if your PC is infected.  What’s nice about this division is that the free product has non-annoying, genuine standalone value, and if you actually do have an infection the upgrade is extremely compelling. (The bad news is that this division encouraged companies to hype the risks of innocuous things like browser cookies).

Preventive security products are trickier to divide than remedial security products. Preventive security products include firewalls like ZoneAlarm and my prior startup, SiteAdvisor (and now SiteAdvisor competitors like Norton’s SafeWeb and Trend Micro’s TrendProtect). The problem with preventative security products is that the only features you can remove end up opening up a vulnerability, which just feels like a huge disservice to the user.

Skype figured out a nice division point: free for Skype-to-Skype calls, pay for calls to regular phones. It’s not clear how sustainable this is as the cost of long distance drops to zero and the distinction between software phones and “regular” phones goes away.

Online storage products usually divide things by the amount of storage. The nice thing about this is 1) you can test a bunch of different prices/storage levels, 2) you get to have a free version plus multiple tiers of paid, which means your pricing can more granularly track customers’ willingness-to-pay. The goal of all revenue maximizing pricing structures is to minimize what economists call “consumer surplus.” Since you can’t gaze into the mind of the user to see what she is willing to pay, and attempts at explicit price discrimination are usually met with outrage, you have to look for proxies for willingness-to-pay. With stock quotes, professionals can’t wait 15 minutes. With books, avid readers don’t want to wait for the paperback version. With databases, wealthier companies have more servers. And with online storage, professionals and hardcore consumers are generally more likely to need more storage space.

The New York Times’ TimesSelect was one of the more interesting attempts at the freemium model. It was free to read the regular news but you had to pay for the op-eds. Personally I usually read one or two of their op-eds every day, but part of the attraction is that I know my friends do and someone will say “Did you read the Krugman piece today?” and then we might chat about it. So in a way op-ed’s have network effects. Putting them behind a paywall doesn’t just reduce their readership, it reduces their influence – the very influence that compels people to read them in the first place.

A final thought:  when in doubt, err on the side of putting more features on the paid side of the divide.   It’s easy to add features to the free side;  however, removing features from the free side is a recipe for trouble.

“Complementary network effects” refer to situations where a product gets more valuable as more people use the product’s complement(s). Two products are complementary when they are more (or only) useful together – for example, a video game and video game console, or an OS and an application for that OS.  Microsoft Windows gets more valuable the more apps are made for it, which in turn makes Windows more popular, which in turn leads to more apps, and so on.  Microsoft Windows is not more valuable simply because there are more copies of Microsoft Windows in the world, but because there are more complements to Windows in the world.

Network effects can be your friend or your enemy depending on whether your product has reached critical mass.  Getting to critical mass in complementary network effect markets is sometimes called overcoming the “chicken and egg problem.”  Back in graduate school (2003), my friend Jeff Rhodes and I wrote a paper titled “Six Strategies for Overcoming the ‘Chicken and Egg’ Problem in Complement-Based Network Effects Markets.”  This is a frequent challenge when launching technology products, yet at least at the time we had seen very few people try to systematically document strategies for overcoming it.  Some of our examples are a bit dated now, but if you are interested in this topic you might like the full paper.

Here is a high level summary of the 6 strategies we describe with a few updated examples.  I’d love to hear from any readers who have more strategies and/or example products.

1. Signal long-term commitment to platform success and competitive pricing.   When Microsoft launched the original Xbox,  they made a big deal of publicly committing to spending $500M promoting the platform, thereby signalling that they were fully committed for the long haul and giving comfort to 3rd party game developers.   Another way to give comfort that your platform isn’t going away is to open source it – this way third parties know that even if the company stops supporting the product, independent developers can continue to do so (e.g. Google Android and Chrome).  Open sourcing also gives comfort that the company isn’t going to raise prices once they’ve reached critical mass.

2. Use backwards and sideways compatibility to benefit from existing complements. Microsoft of course has used backward compatibility very successfully for decades with DOS and then Windows, as have many game console makers.  In our paper we argue that the successful early bill pay (“bill presentment”) companies provided backward compatibility by sending snail mail checks to merchants who had yet to sign on to their electronic platform.

Virtual machines and Bootcamp gave Apple’s hardware some sideways compatibility with Windows.  Sun’s invention of Java could be seen as an attempt to introduce sideways compatibility between its shrinking server market and its competitors (Windows, Linux) by introducing a new, cross-platform programming layer.

3. Exploit irregular network topologies. In the last 90s, most people assumed that dating websites was a “winner take all market” and Match.com had won it, until a swath of niche competitors arose (e.g. Jdate) that succeeded because certain groups of people tend to date others from that same group.  Real-life networks are often very different from the idealized, uniformly distributed networks pictured in economics textbooks.  Facebook exploited the fact that social connections are highly clustered at colleges as a “beachhead” to challenge much bigger incumbents (Friendster).  By finding clusters in the network smaller companies can reach critical mass within those sub-clusters and then expand beyond.

4. Influence the firms that produce vital complements.  Sony and Philips, the companies that oversaw the successful launch of the compact disc technology in the early 1980′s, followed the CD launch with the introduction of the digital audiotape (DAT) in 1987. The DAT offered CD sound quality and, in a significant improvement over CD technology, it also offered the ability to record music.  Despite these improvements, the DAT never gained significant consumer adoption and ended as an embarrassing failure for Sony and Philips.  DAT failed because Sony and Philips failed to reassure record companies who were concerned that the recording capabilities of DAT would lead to widespread piracy.  Sony finally reached an anti-piracy agreement with record companies in 1992, but by that time consumer expectations for the DAT platform were dampened sufficiently to doom the platform.

On the other hand, when Sony and Philips launched the CD, they succeeded because they did a significantly better job influencing complement producers. Most importantly, they addressed the record companies’ primary concern by making CDs piracy resistant (or so it seemed at the time). In addition, Philips was able to influence Polygram, a major record label, to release music in the CD format because Philips owned a 50 percent stake in Polygram. Finally, Sony and Philips provided the record companies with access to their manufacturing technology and plant in order to ensure an adequate supply of complementary products. As a result, nearly 650 music titles were available in CD format when the first CD players were released and the CD format went on to become the most popular music format.

5. Provide standalone value for the base product.  Philips introduced the videodisc player (VDP) in 1979 as a competitor to the VCR. VDPs had slightly better picture quality than VCRs and had potentially lower hardware and software costs, owing to a simpler manufacturing process. However, the VCR had a 3-4 year head start on the VDP and had already developed an installed base of over one million units.

Providing a stand-alone use is the strategy that VCR producers used to achieve a successful launch and avoid fighting the difficult chicken and egg startup problem. Unlike the VDP, the VCR offered the ability to time-shift television programming. In fact, when the VCR was launched this was the only application available because the market for pre-recorded videocassettes had not yet developed. The standalone value for the VCR “time-shifting television programming” was sufficiently strong to get over a million people to purchase the product in the first 3-4 years after its launch. This installed user base of the VCR as a base product was sufficient to entice entrepreneurs to develop a market for pre-recorded videocassettes as complementary products in the late 1970′s. The complement-based network effect that resulted improved the value of the base product, increased sales velocity for the base and complementary products, and ensured that the VCR would be a common feature in most American homes.

A good modern example of this would be del.icio.us, which had stand alone value by storing your bookmarks in the cloud, and also had network effects with its social features.

6. Integrate vertically into critical complements when supply is not certain.  To overcome the chicken and egg problem, companies must find a way to ensure an adequate supply, variety, and quality of complementary goods. By vertically integrating into the complement product as well as the base product, a company can attempt to ensure an adequate supply of both goods.  Nintendo is the leading developer of games for its consoles, and Microsoft and Sony fund many of their most popular games.

Vertical integration is risky – as witnessed by the Apple computer in the late 80s and early 90s. By remaining tightly integrated, Apple precluded market competition from providing the necessary variety of price-competitive complements and base products.

**

Many of the above strategies (especially 3 & 5) apply to regular (non-complementary) network effect products.