Baseball is my favorite sport. I was fortunate to be living in NY during the later half of the 1980s. I was even more fortunate to have witnessed Game 6 of the 1986 world series with my own eyes. I also played baseball in high school. I was a mediocre hitter, to be honest, not really disciplined and with some technique flaws. My batting average was ok, but I had too many strikeouts (patience!) and too little home runs (technique!). However, I was a great fielder. I played a mean shortstop (great glove) and was often used in center field as well (good sped and arm). Not a trivial combination. At 36, I still reminisce on the few home runs I managed to pull 20 years ago. I follow the game closely, I have written about it and I still get heartbroken every time the Mets collapse.

Which is why I almost get angry when I see baseball being abused.

Shai Tsur, in his recent posts, has taken a brave swing at explaining the VC model. While Shai has done well explaining the rational of VCs, he has brought to my attention a Marc Andreessen’s post in which he compared the VC model to the game of baseball:

“The whole structure of how the technology industry gets funded — by venture capitalists, angel investors, and Wall Street — is predicated on the baseball model. Out of ten swings at the bat, you get maybe seven strikeouts, two base hits, and if you are lucky, one home run. The base hits and the home runs pay for all the strikeouts.”

In other words, it’s about slugging percentage.

Yeah well.

That’s the only similarity I can find. The differences, however, are more striking. the game is so fundamentally different I don’t really know where to start.

First of all, a baseball hitter doesn’t choose his at at bats. When you’re up to the plate you have got to face the pitcher, be it Johan Santana or Roger Clemens. You can choose your hitting strategy - wait off some pitches and see if you can get ahead in the count, or be aggressive and jump on the first pitch - but in each case you HAVE to perform. VC’s choose their pitchers, pitches, teams, fields, leagues, arenas. Imagine what kind of batting average a decent Major League would pile up if he had such privilege.

The second difference is even more fundamental. In baseball, your goal is to win as many games as possible during the season. Not a single game or a single at bat, but a pennant. This is the source of terms such as pitching rotation, sacrifice, intentional walk, middle relief, etc. Slugging percentage is nice, but it doesn’t really say that much. Barry Bonds had a great slugging percentage but San Francisco hasn’t won anything in who knows how many years.

The third difference is with the true meaning of stats. Baseball is all about stats. If you hit .320 with 35 home runs this season, chances are you’ll hit more or less the same next season. In the start up industry your last at bat doesn’t mean much. In baseball terms, you can have an MVP season and then follow up with a sub mandoza line season. You can find yourself with seed stock at Google and be considered a genius. You can pass on the opportunity to have invested in Facebook and go down as a fool. It’s much more about the guts than about the stats.

VC’s are not baseball teams. A typical VC is a group of talented individuals who work at a firm whose sole purpose is to wisely invest other people’s money. Everybody likes hitting home runs, but striking out in this case could mean hurting someone else’s pension fund. It’s different than waiting for your next at bat. It’s different than losing today and winning tomorrow. In this case, sadly perhaps, every loss counts. You could argue that the law of averages takes care of that, but in reality when it comes to making decisions about investments VCs are much more risk averse than baseball players. The think many times before they swing, a privilege a 95 MPH fastball doesn’t grant.

I’m not saying the models don’t count. They do. VCs do try to make intelligent investments and earn the highest returns they can. But human factors count just as much, which is why people tend to invest in entrepreneurs they already know from past experiences. Images count, which is why VCs look to invest in big names. Job security counts, which is you need to be safe when its time to explaining killing a portfolio company. Nobody knows which company is the next Google and honestly, very few people trust their own judgment when it comes to making such predictions. In the end, the system works its way to its own optimum. It’s only natural, but don’t compare that to baseball.

      

One factor that as a startupist you can’t help escaping is dealing with the size of your ego. It’s not that your ego wasn’t around before, but starting up is definitely a catalyst for its surfacing. There are plenty of reasons for it. You need to make many judgment calls during a single day. You need to fight off inferiority complexes triggered by watching the bigger players and their success. You need to motivate your team (and yourself) continuously and you have got to sell your vision to everyone almost every single minute.

No matter how successful you become, every time something happens to others your ego gets involved. You envy your friend next door for having raised $10M and when YOU get the $10M investment you envy your other friends’ big contract, or exit. You get pissed with a swift move from a bigger competitor that just blew off your business pitch. You feel sour after seeing the VC that turned you down 3 months ago investing in another company in your space. As romantic as it may sometimes seem, starting up involves dealing with rejection, a lot of rejection, much more than in any ordinary job.

It is commonly believed that for an entrepreneur, a big ego is not only a plus but a virtue. One of my friends who is also a partner in a leading Israeli VC has even admitted that they are somewhat looking for a big ego when they scout new ventures. A founder with a big ego (and big balls) can fight this rejection off while claiming an ability to beat Microsoft or Google - all with a confident face. You can’t become big if you don’t think you’re huge, right?

Wrong. As a matter of fact, the more I grow the more my belief is strengthened. The more you let go of you ego the better your chances are to succeed. Big balls have very little to do with big ego. Big balls mean you have faith in your ability to succeed. Big ego means you need an artificial layer to protect you from your own fears.

It’s safe to say every executive I have worked for had an above average ego. Some were good executives and some were bad executives, but none of them benefited from their big ego. It often caused them to never admit an obvious mistake or from taking good advice from people of lower rank but better judgment. When I look at my own career, my ego failed me much more than it helped me for the exact same reasons. It contributed to a wrong perception of reality and to Hubris. Any friction I ever had with a former boss had my ego involved. Professional and personal integrity are great points of character, but we very often disguise our big ass ego by abusing them.

I work with a group of talented individuals at Hooqs.com. All my colleagues are better than I am in at least one aspect of the start up game. The more I tuck in ego in the better I get. The more I listen to my ego, the more I have to regret. Straight and simple.

Getting a start up to a point of success involves a lot of faith, leadership, good perception of reality, resilience, setting personal example and a lot of self hyped confidence. This is called leadership, which in my book does not carry a big ego. You can tell everyone that you can beat Microsoft and that Bill Gates will work for you as a product manager, but it’s a load of crap. The only big shot names you will be able to hire at an early stage for the sake of their name are big shot egos with an agenda you don’t need. Chances are you’ll develop a great gallery of names, a bag of contradicting philosophies and a shitload of political issues to deal with. This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t hire supreme talent, you should, but here again your key to hiring real talent is with your ability to tuck in your ego and to let that talent contribute.

How does that blend with building billion dollar companies? My philosophy is that you can’t plan a billion dollar company. If you build a fantastic company it may eventually become one, but you need to build an excellent company before you even dream of it. The desire to foresee and fore-plan billion dollar companies is an original sin. It’s like trying to predict the future at the expense of decisions in the present. In the early stage, you need to focus on building a good product that people will be happy to use and pay for. You need to execute on a good marketing plan that encapsulates a good perception of reality. You need to make difficult compromises everyday and you mustn’t be deterred. If you do all that well you’ll build a good growing company. 

My ego is not going anywhere, but I am going to do my best to confine it. Confidence, faith, devotion - absolutely. But the border line with just plain ego is very easy to miss.

      

Google’s mobile version of AdSense is finally in beta. After months of second hand rumors, these news now seem substantiated as Google has put together a mobile ad FAQ page. Ads are available in 13 countries: the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, China, Ireland, India, Russia and Australia. Advertisers can choose between 12 and 18 characters per ad.

The pricing and clearance processes are similar to the ones already established on the web with one major exception. In the mobile version, the user can actually place a call to the published business. If this doesn’t drive mobile click through price up then I find it hard to know what will.

Will this work? Absolutely! I believe this is exactly what the industry needs to kick-back. Banners are limited and the collective user patience for them is exhausted. Useful, contextual information on the mobile phone can actually add value to the browsing session.

      

I spent the week in Monaco at MEM2007. From the personal perspective it was a very exciting show, after all, first time HOOQs was on display. From that perspective we had an excellent show - great feedback and lots of users and leads. We have work cut out for us, but the good news is that the market is HOT! The need for personalized, open, operator independent web to mobile services is all over the place and is welcomed by users, operators, content providers, analysts and bloggers.

MEM2007 is not really a classic exhibition, it’s more of a conference. Participation is nearly exclusive to industry insiders and the tracks, therefore, are very professional. To a start-up-ist, these represent rare opportunities to take a 30,000 feet view and collect some insights that extend beyond the daily challenges. My own personal climax was not a single industry lecture or panel, even though all were very interesting at their own merit. To me, the most insightful session was a focus group with 10 different teenagers. These young adults were gathered from different countries - Australia, England, France, Italy, Finland, Germany - and were all surveyed about their digital lives. Here is some of what they told us:

1. The key elements teenagers look for in their mobile phones is appearance. Then come ability to play music, quality of camera and feature richness. 

2. Nokia is the most popular handset brand. Out of the 10 participants, 5 had Nokias, 2 had Samsungs, 2 had LGs (Chocolate) and 1 had a Sony Ericsson. 7 out of 10 devices were 3G.

3. They don’t do mobile clients - only 1 participant ever downloaded a mobile application. A game. Used it a couple of times and ditched it.

4. Teenagers are smart shoppers. They don’t mind paying for Internet content, but hate buying stuff they can easily find for free. In other words, they will not buy songs for 3 Euros a pop. Contrary to popular belief, they buy a lot of CDs in addition to downloading free music. They know how to manage their music collection and how to get their favorite music on their mobile device.

5. On they other hand, all participants testified they would gladly buy new content if only they could find it easily. All participants agreed that the mobile operator portals are close to impossible to navigate through.

6. On top, the differences between operators and handsets make it impossible for users to share experiences. Not tracks or clips - pure information about where and how to find them!

7. They things they on their handsets are better Internet browsing and memory. They really don’t get why MP3 and Video enabled phones come with such little memory.

8. They don’t mind advertising if it makes content free. They are already used to online ant TV advertising, why object to mobile ads?

9. They all tried Google on their mobile and didn’t like it. The mobile experience does not provide anything close to the internet experience.

10. They don’t do MMS. All of them tried and all of them claim that “it doesn’t work”.

11. If they had to give up their TV, Mobile Phone or PC, 9 out of 10 would give up their TV (the only other answer was PC). None would let go of their mobile phone.

These young adults were not screaming in a vacuum. It was great to hear executives from operators presenting plans to further breakdown their walled gardens and push flat data rates. It seems like it’s only a question of price points now. This is music to the ears of user centric service providers. To me, however, getting the bartenders in front of our booth excited and HooQed was most rewarding than anything!

      

My day job has become my all-around-the-day job lately as you can tell from the lack of recent writing.  Well, the reason why is now out in beta!

HooQs is a user centric web to mobile service. You can search, create, save and share internet media with mobile phones.  Your personal media is aggregated in channels which we call HooQs. HooQs can be saved, managed, sent to mobile phones around the world and of course, enjoyed. Registration is optional, however as a user you get your own internet rich media portal tailored to your own personal taste.

Since the whole idea is to get personal, my own favorite HooQs at the moment are Paris Hilton in Jail, Vintage TV Commercials, Best of Monty Python and Computer Game Nostalgia.  My full HooQ board can be found here.

So get HooQed but be gentle, Beta means Beta! We do promise to do our best to continuously improve and personally I would more than welcome your feedback and comments! 

HooQs is best used on a 3G phone.

      

My friend Shahar has decided to sign off every post from now on with the following:

“Moreover, I advise that the genocide in Darfur must be stopped”

This is a paraphrase on Cato the Elder, who used to sign off every speech with a pledge to destroy Carthage (”Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse”).

Israel and the whole Jewish people have commemorated the victims of Holocaust last week. We are very good in remembering what happened to us, we suck at preventing it from happening to others. We seem to have an infinite repository of excuses. Once it gets out of our immediate scope we simply do not care. I am not sure which one is worse.  

I am very ashamed of the fact we have not taken a proactive stand in the Darfur situation. I am more ashamed of myself for having done nothing to date.

I am going to take Shahar up on his initiative and sign off every post with a pledge. The thought of generating a lot of noise from the blogosphere is not far fetched.

Moreover, I advise that the genocide in Darfur must be stopped

      

This post was contributed to Degardener by Shahar Even Dar. I strongly encourage you to visit Shahar’s writing here and here (in Hebrew).  Shahar is a long time friend and thinker.

This is the first in a series of posts in which I try to look at the long tail theory from a critical angle and check it limits. It seems nearly impossible to overestimate the impact of Chris Anderson’s long tail theory, and it is surely inadvisable to underestimate it. And yet, one can find examples for both types of wrong reactions. I am not worried, in any sense, about old media corporations trying to dismiss the new reality and I will not shed a tear while watching them drain millions before waking up. It is the over estimators, Chris Anderson naturally being the most prominent one, that worry me.

It seems nearly impossible to overestimate the impact of ’s long tail theory, and it is surely inadvisable to underestimate it. And yet, one can find examples for both types of wrong reactions. I am not worried, in any sense, about old media corporations trying to dismiss the new reality and I will not shed a tear while watching them drain millions before waking up. It is the over estimators, Chris Anderson naturally being the most prominent one, that worry me.The long tail theory was quickly adopted by many people who found it to be the perfect tool for analyzing the new emerging online economy. Those people now tend to look at the long tail as the only possible model for online commerce, and strongly object to any contradicting evidence. In a recent post in Anderson’s blog, for example, he was startled by the claim in a NYT article, that the DVD market is hit-oriented. For Anderson, the mere thought that a niche market does not follow his famous model is a blasphemy. Furthermore, if you are looking at online success, you must think in long tail terms. You either try to become a long tail supplier like amazon or try to carve yourself a respectable niche somewhere along the tail of an existing market by using SEM and SEO. While these two approaches are viable, one should remember that other options still exist.

The most striking example for a success that does not comply with Anderson’s theory is the online T-shirt vendor, Threadless. Threadless, for those who don’t know it yet, is a niche store aimed at T-shirt aficionados. Aspiring designers are invited to submit designs for the open contest (as well as for periodic topical contests), submitted designs are uploaded to the site, to be scored by Threadless registered users. Winning designs are printed in rather low quantities and announced twice per month. Many of the designs get sold out rapidly, leaving users with the option to call for a reprint. In other words, Threadless artificially and on purpose chooses a path which Anderson would regard as crazy; it cuts its own tail. And yet, this is the exact reason for the success story that drives Threadless. This is why there is such a buzz in the blogosphere about Threadless, why people rush to buy the new designs as soon as they get the biweekly newsletter, and why people get emotionally involved with a T-shirt store. Many times artificial scarcity works!

The Threadless success could only happen on the internet, of course, it is based almost only on viral marketing through blog reactions, its customers are T-shirt fans scattered all over the globe, and the online voting process has a major part in creating the customers’ emotional involvement. But all those factors do not make Threadless a long tail company, as I said earlier, quite the opposite is true.

Some people might argue that Threadless simply found a respectable niche within the overall long tail market of T-shirts, in which Gap, for example, is located at the hits end, and Threadless, as well as others is located somewhere along the tail. I beg to differ. Anderson’s model is based on the idea that the availability of information lets each buyer find exactly what he or she was looking for instead of settling for some default hit. Threadless uses the availability of information to create an almost opposite effect, to generate a will for something you did not know you wanted. Instead of relying on infinite shelf space and back catalog, Threadless forces its customers to be aware of the very limited shelf space, and the merely nonexistent back catalog, and manages to do it successfully.

The lesson to be taken from this example is that as powerful as the long tail is, there are still many other paths to success and to exploit the advantages of the online economy, as long as you keep an open mind.

Full disclosure: This post was written while wearing a Threadless “Technology Ruins Nature” shirt.

      

Scott Karp wrote a great post last week about video needing discovery more than distribution. In case you’re lazy, here’s the bottom line:

“Whoever figures out a scalable, networked, distributed, Web 2.0-compliant solution to the online video discovery problem may find themselves in the rare position to compete with Google.”

No more, no less. And I totally agree.

SuTree seems to agree with well. Their video based, end user e-learning service is based on discovery. While many video sharing verticals (Aniboom, 5Min.com) create their own stock and while YouTube and MetaCafe manage huge horizontal repositories, SuTree takes a different approach - it searches, filters and aggregates instructional content from across the big web. This way, they believe, true vertical value can be provided to the user without compromising the content itself.

I tried it and it works.  The results are rich, diversified and fetch content from good sources that I would never have known about otherwise. I ended up discovering not only content but great websites (check out VideoJug). it is clear the SuTree team are onto a good formula and that they build a good blend of technology, editorial work and collaborative filtering. I was very impressed with the depth of content I found. Quite a few categories and subcategories filled with plenty of high quality content. I also liked the “random lesson” which is offered on almost every page an that is very sticky in this case.

It’s not the service is free of flaws. The categories are too “serious” for my taste for example. I would appreciate some lightening up with more fun categories, such that would get me to both explore and contribute more often. I also found the site way too crowded with advertising. Finally, I found the free search very limited at this point. The service needs a lot more time and depth before the “long tail” can be effectively addressed with free search.

in the long run, one is tempted to ask the “why not YouTube?” inevitable question. I am a big believer in verticals and this is no exception. Yes, YouTube can ‘do it tomorrow’ but users will not look to e-learn on YouTube. The bigger challenge would come from the independent e-learning repositories which can expand to search. SuTree may develop a unique position of an ultimate search partner when that happens.

      

I was aware of the fact that ePayments were going through the most significant revolution since the invention of the credit card, but Payoneer managed to blow me away. It’s one thing to solve a real problem. Managing to simultaneously address an array of real problems, on and off the web, is a totally different story. Payoneer mastered a way to put sticking glue on both.

Payoneer’s offering is for businesses, but it is an end user product - a prepaid rechargeable debit card. The card (by MasterCard), is connected to a personal, secure, web based “checking account”. Card holders can use the card on and off the internet, collect and make payments, withdraw cash at ATMs, transfer funds in and out at their will and so forth.

Businesses, on the other hand, can use the cards to avoid the huge headache involved in managing payments. Instead of paper checks, eChecks and wire-transfers, which altogether are complicated to manage, expensive and insufficient, they can opt for a much simpler solution – issue a debit card to each payee and just credit it.

Payoneer offers the solution as a one stop shop, including issuance, management and support and all for a very cost effective price.  The company has announced this week that it has raised $4M led by Greylock Partners. It’s customer and early adopter base already includes names such as MetaCafe, oDesk, ROI Rocket and Plimus. I sat down with Moshe Mor of Greylock Partners and with Yuval Tal of Payoneer for a discussion that turned truly inspiring.

Can you pinpoint your target market?

Tal: “The sweet spot is clearly with web related companies who need to pay both companies and individuals. These companies  can now put together an effective business environment. Managing payments to a global array of individuals is close to impossible. eChecks and direct deposits are not a popular payout method even in the US and then there are all sorts of international banking and currency issues which just kill the whole thing. The result is a market that remains mostly paper based. The web 2.0 economy is dependent on the need to manage payment relationships with people all over the world. Think about paying bloggers for their journalism, for example, or about experts offering their services at expert networks. They all need a pay-out solution as a fundamental component of any business environment. Our customers have a very simple solution – they issue debit cards and then reload it on an ongoing basis without worrying about anything else”

What about the end user?

Tal: “For the individual the situation is even more painful. Take user generated content, for example. Think about what it takes to actually benefit from it as an individual. Cashing international checks is a very complicated matter for many people in many countries. Very few publishers would transfer money to personal bank accounts. This whole situation sets the bar at a point which is not cost effective or time worthy for most people and therefore withholds the huge economic potential”.

So how can another card solve a complicated issue?

Tal: “The card is the best mechanism because it’s simple and universally accepted. MasterCard cards can be used at any store, website or ATM, worldwide. Unlike pure online solutions like PayPal, you don’t need to worry about how to withdraw your earnings. The global economy has created a dire need for fluent payments from US publishers to international contributors, for example, a need that presents a huge and limiting challenge and that is easily addressed by us.”

Mor: “Let’s take a look at the big picture for a minute. The web economy started mostly as a one-directional payment flow; people paying for stuff they buy online. Over the last few years, the web economy has developed to encompass many more payment flows: people paying people (which gave rise to PayPal), people getting paid for directing traffic to web sites (affiliate networks) and more recently, for generating content. While the pay-in flow has been around for a years and therefore has been addressed by multiple solutions, the pay-out flow hasn’t. The globalization of the web added a layer of complexity that required innovative solutions like prepaid cards. So we have an underserved and a growing need”

How can you compete with better established solutions like PayPal?

Tal: “I get this question a lot but you need to understand that Payoneer does not compete with PayPal. It is the credit card companies’ strategic interest to establish position in the pay-out market and they do it with partners like us. PayPal is a great solution but it is also limited. It is much more dominant in the US domestic market and with US bank account holders. You can’t use your PayPal account to get an ATM in India, for example, but you can easily use your MasterCard card and get an ATM card there. Our solution is good for individuals that are practically “unbanked” and for people who prefer not to use their day to day back account to get paid”

This seems like an opportunity for new entrants. What is Payoneer’s secret sauce?

Mor: “Payoneer is coming into this opportunity with what we believe is the first easy-to-use and comprehensive solution. I believe that the main barrier to entry is credibility and domain expertise. Very few teams have the breadth of experience that this unique space requires. It took Payoneer almost two years to develop a platform that can provide a reliable and credible solution and they started with a team that already knew what they were doing! “

Tal: “We needed to rally a major bank behind us, then get through MasterCard and this is before addressing any “regular” start up issues. Both needed to feel very comfortable with our ability to manage this type of operation. Our deep experience with online banking was necessary just to get started. This isn’t a space you simply walk into”

What is your longer term vision?

Tal: “I believe the real benefit businesses begin to realize is the upgraded relationship they will have built with their users. An ongoing billing relationship with an individual is a very meaningful asset. It means your customer carriers your logo in her pocket, literally and metaphorically. It means your customer pay regular visits to your website. Transforming any engagement to a sustainable billing relationship carries much deeper potential for brand attachment and for additional business.

Evidence shows that people tend to spend on the web what they earn from the web. This sets the stage for much bigger economics and our customers already begin to realize that. Check out Plimus, for example. A market place for user generated software that has integrated our solution. A classic example of a web 2.0 service provider that gets it” 

Look, this market will clearly happen, the only question is whether it’s going to be us that get to lead it”

I remembered it was not too long ago that PayPal was a young, promising start up too. I have a strong feeling I will sit back and reflect on this post in a few years when Payoneer will long be a household name.

      

We all know this problem. How can we get our hands around the research that is relevant to our business? Research tracking has become impossible, particularly in an Internet start-up where the full time job is already filled with several full time tasks.

Danny Cohen of Gemini decided to grab one bull by the horn. He opened a research library that covers web 2.0 and Venture Capital. In the process he has also spun his eSnips account very cunningly, showing that the potential for sharing is basically infinite given the right environment. The folder can be reached here:

I personally plan to use it.

      

GigaOM reports that Symbian is about to announce a significant upgrade to its operating system on Monday at CTIA. According to ABI Research, Symbian held a commanding 73% market share of the loosely defined Smart-phone market in 2006, resulting in about 50 Million shipments. 

Improvements include battery and memory management, camera and multimedia enhancements and the introduction of transparent and automatic roaming between WiFi and 3G. MobHappy brings the full details.

The upgrade is very significant for a number of reasons. Symbian is reaching out of the Smartphone niche. The multimedia boost, for example, is clearly a consumer focus. Push email and Voip are communication apps and not “business apps” anymore. Symbian is slowly but surely building an attractive and real consumer position, realizing that the higher end market would pay a little more for high quality feature phone.

The introduction of transparent WiFi - 3G roaming is even more significant. While full handset OEM support is needed, this has the potential of making operator independent mobile internet actually usable. Very few users actually bother with switching networks on an ongoing basis. Making the switch automatic would not only reduce costs for the end user, it would also break a wide open hole in the walled garden. And this does not only apply to browsing but to the very core - phone calls. Now, I don’t see Mobile VOIP going mainstream very soon, but I definitely see a gradual uptake, mostly by the cream of the crop from an operator point of view - the travelling professionals.  

How will Operators deal with this? Good question. So far everybody’s happy with the containment of Symbian devices as “Smartphones”. It makes it easy for everyone to avoid a clash. Some operators force vendors to take off the WiFi feature for now (Cingular and Nokia E62 for example). Some put a more constructive focus on upgrading their 3G networks. In any case, it’s all a prelude to the unavoidable reshuffle of the mobile universe.

      

PayPal is about to make a strategic entry into mobile web with the launch of Mobile Checkout, a mobile service that will allow anyone with a PayPal account to buy things using their mobile browsers. 

Rumors have been flying around as PayPal apparently has been diligently working on the product for quite some time. In fact, I wouldn’t rule out an announcement next week at CTIA. The product is in beta right now and is planned for release later this year. Once out, PayPal Mobile Checkout will allow people to buy stuff they’re searching for on their mobile phones.

We could not get an official comment from PayPal of course, but a credible and passionate inside source has indeed verified the rumor and was kind enough the leak the following screen shot:

The payment process is the same as PayPal online – you enter your PayPal user name and password. Along the way you can create a pin so that future transactions are much faster. You don’t have to fill out a long web form of addresses and credit card numbers – which is unsafe and a pain on a mobile phone.

The mobile web has been yearning for payment solutions for a while now. Premium SMS is commonly used for mobile payments but mostly for single, micro transactions such as voting, media and alerts. While premium SMS is very intuitive, it is not trouble free. Mobile operators grab roughly 50% of the revenue and there have been quite a few reliability issues. The opportunity for real ”Mobile Payments 2.0″ is definitely there.

PayPal announced last week that it has reached 35 Million subscribers in Europe and about 150 Million subscribers worldwide. It was only expected that the successful web giants would start porting their services to the mobile space and PayPal is apparently the first significant player about to make an entry.

      

I have Joost on my computer and it’s practically a new world wonder. Finally, a TV app that looks great and works even better. The user experience is absolutely flawless - sexy, simple, cool. It blends the benefits of TV and Computer interaction very well and the quality of the video itself is the best I have seen. Even the inserted ads don’t look intrusive, perhaps because we are all so used to ad-raping by network TV by now. These folks are doing something right. 

But will it succeed? I see one, huge, problem. It can’t be used at work! And what is the only place left without TV access? That’s right. Work!

Let’s take a look at the successful viral apps of the last decade - Instant Messaging, P2P File Sharing, Skype, Blogging. All have one great thing in common - we can safely use them at work. I am not referring to IT security because most of us couldn’t care less about IT security. I am referring to job security. The ability to play hookie without getting caught. IM and Kazaa could simply run in the background and consume very sporadic attention. You can download a file and write a post without drawing the attention of your roommates, or worse, of your boss. And you can minimize all in a split second if someone walks behind your back.

Can you do that with Joost? Nope. TV is TV. It takes up your attention and it’s intrusive to the environment. Wearing headphones is possible in some places, but then the detachment from the environment is so complete one cannot really sit back and enjoy without keeping an eye on the door. This practically means Joost will hardly be used at work but at home. Except that at home we have a great alternative already - a 30+ inch TV with gazillions of channels.

Which means the premier target audience, for now at least, are kids playing in their room behind closed doors, assuming they have attention span left to squeeze between MySpace, TV and PlayStation. While I don’t underestimate the huge potential of that target audience, I don’t think it’s up to par with the wide audience and virgin attention span IM, Kazaa or Skype enjoyed.

Then again, Joost has all the right ingredients. P2P technology is definitely mature enough for Video on Demand. You couldn’t ask for better founders - both in terms of technology and of marketing. We are all really, really tired of outdated TV content distribution models and Joost will have no trouble at all getting a first time look by any reasonable user.

They should be smart enough to have a plan for that problem too. I am just curious to see what that is.

      

Jerking off.

What exactly is the deal with the “Are We in a Bubble” symposium? Is there a point to this conversation?

What started with a soft spoken debate seems to be going religious. It’s not enough to have just a point of view anymore, you need to subscribe to a camp.  You either think we are about to burst, or the exact opposite.

It’s not that I don’t have my own point of view, of course. Personally, I think some portions of the tech market are somewhat inflated with gold diggers. I see investments in “over valued” start-ups (can someone explain what “over valued” means exactly? over valued compared to what? to the personal taste of the critique?). I see a lot of activity in what seems to be over saturated niches and in technology that will not mature so fast. Most importantly, I see a lot of desire for short term short cuts.

On the other hand, I see so much exciting stuff out there. So many bright, thinking entrepreneurs and so much venture capital - 2 sides that still, for the most part, simply fail to meet. I see so much need for better communications, information management, medical solutions and programs, fun and entertainment, recreation, financial and equity management, personal accomplishment and so much more.  

The debate is not about a bubble but about the road to success - it’s length, it’s mapping, it’s challenges. Long distance runners don’t see a bubble and don’t care for the debate. The term “Bubble” is abusive because it overshadows the industry instead of referring to what it should refer to - the potential for short term speculations.

While this debate is important, it is secondary to the whole scene.

      

After I got busy trashing Google Apps, I finally received a human support callback today (thanks Sonya!). We managed to fix the CNAME and MX issues, got it up and running and ladies and gents, it Rocks!

I still think this whole domain administration challenge is an absurd, but the result is rewarding:

1. Straight forward company Intranet.

2. We are all on the same calendar,  each one of us not compromising access to the personal one as well.

3. Our docs and spreadsheets are aggregated.

4. VERY easy administration.

5. We already know how to use it from our previous experience with Google.

While clearly not an enterprise solution (and not even a medium size business solution) Google Apps is an excellent solution for the Internet Savvy / SoHo. <