Web-Tones

Smart Buildings & Ideas that Scale

Link: Twitter: Don’t blame Ruby, blame Scoble » VentureBeat. Clearly the ability to scale an app to a "massive" number of users is a problem for a startup. You don't have the luxury to see that far ahead when what you are focusing on is the viability of the idea. That is why more and more startups will use "scale on demand" architectures. That way you can focus on the idea and get scale when you need it--presto, you get ideas that scale.

But startups are not the only ones that should be thinking about "scale on demand." You are likely to see non-tech companies with technology offerings in vertical after vertical. Take the commercial real estate industry, there are clearly some "smart buildings" killer apps that are there for the taking, but the first company that gets the idea right better be prepared to scale. Most won't. They will use "cobbled together" commodity architectures and will run smack into the scalability wall. Why? Because they will be focused on the idea as opposed to focusing on "ideas that scale."

Google v. Everybody Else?

Link: Obama Spent Most of $3.5 Million This Year on Google - ClickZ. Need more convincing that Google should be the primary, if not ONLY, focus of PPC for online entrepreneurs? The Obama campaign spent over 80% of its online ad dollars on Google (presumably some large % on PPC).

Sure, you might be leaving some money on the table by ignoring all other search engines, but how much is you time worth? Online entrepreneurs have lots to do other than learn the intricacies of multiple ad platforms. Becoming literate in, let alone mastering, AdWords is a daunting enough task, especially for DIY types--I suspect most online entrepreneurs fit into the latter category, out of sheer necessity in the early years.

Focus on Google. If you are going to spend $$ getting up to speed, spend it learning AdWords. If you are going to hire a consultant to help, make sure you get some mentoring while you are at it. Online advertising is NOT a one off event, it is a way of doing business. You or your staff will be engaged in this activity for a long time to come. If you outsource it all you are going to be paying consultants forever.

Lawyers & Process

Link: Strategic Legal Technology :: Measuring Lawyer Quality. Ron has a couple of excellent posts here regarding lawyers and process issues. It seems like, despite how legal services are sold, that there is relatively little process (read quality assurance) that goes into the delivery of legal services, apart from the professionalism of the individual contributor primarily responsible. Sure, mentoring happens occasionally in "one off" instances, but mostly the almighty billable hour reigns because "process" is not readily billable.

But that is mostly nonsense. Take Ron's analysis of checklists in the operating room or the kind of QA that software requires. I believe that process is simply something that lawyers are not comfortable with. There is no training for it in law schools or anywhere else as far as I can tell. This is certainly not an optimal state of affairs but one that globalization and a more competitive environment is likely to have an impact on. Clients will begin to expect more. They will begin to ask the right questions. When they do, firms that have a process in place to ensure quality are likely to win more business.

The "good 'ole boy" nature of the profession has some serious cracks in it. A shakeout will be good for consumers and good for those firms that learn the importance of process.

Online: This is not your father's Chevy!

Link: Why Traditional Advertising Formats Fail On The Web - Publishing 2.0. Scott does a great job in this post of illustrating why most online advertising doesn't work. Only Google has cracked the code by tying ads to utility value for consumers. But this analogy works also works for other industries that are making the shift online.

Take the legal industry. How does a law firm go about getting some Google juice? Who in their right mind links to a law firm website? Well there are obviously ways to get links but the key point here is that law firm sites often are comprised of nothing more than a canned sales pitch, which might be good for the firm but provides very little value to potential consumers. But this need not be the case (excuse the pun). There are any number of ways that firms could provide content that is engaging and useful; but they don't. Why? Because while they may be online their thinking is not--it is still tied to the world of atoms.

Gilligan's web?

Link: Rough Type: Nicholas Carr's Blog: Gilligan's web. I am not certain that I buy this "liberation mythology" argument. It certainly raises some interesting points but Clay's argument is not quite as "simple minded" as portrayed here. Sure there is the Gilligan analogy as an "opposing force" but that is not the gist of Clay's thesis in Here Comes Everybody.

So what is the thesis? Read the book. There is more here than is apparent on its face. It seems that Nick often likes to take the posture that his "hard nosed" view of the web is "real" and everything else is BS. The "hard nosed" view is valid but that does not imply that all others are simply "mythology." That is not only a disservice to Clay's work, it is simply wrong.

Open Source Law?

Link: Harvard Law School goes open access! - Boing Boing. Why shouldn't the masses be free to read the best in legal scholarship right along with the elite few? This is an important step on the part of Harvard Law School. Hopefully we will see many other law schools follow suit.

There will be some resistance of course, but I am not sure how the argument on the other side can be justified. The law belongs to everyone and to no one. Accessibility to it through quality legal scholarship simply underpins that which has always been foundational in principle, although not in practice.

Identity. Context. Presence.

Link: At Rearden Commerce, Addiction is Job One ($100 Million Round Confirmed, Major Deal With JPMorgan Chase). Think that "Web 20 like" apps are not going to have an impact on enterprise computing? Think again. Point and click ease of use and real value delivered (plus some giants pushing the brand) can make a difference.

This powerful combination is likely to be featured over and over again, ala Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Sun and so forth partnering to get there wares behind the firewall. As consumers grow accustom to Web 2.0 UI's in the personal life, they will begin to push for similar interfaces in what they do 9 to 5. In short enterprise IT is definitely at an inflection point, and some visionary CIO's are starting to "get it" in a big way.

Chris Saah often says that if information is more than just a few clicks away ( I believe that 3 is his magic number) then it is completely fugitive, because it won't be used. This is of course a metaphor of sorts, but one with relevant "deep analytics" attached to it.

Lawyers: Risk Aversion = Missed Opportunities

Link: Strategic Legal Technology :: Risk Aversion and the Failure to Consider Alternatives. This little snippet is indicative of why many law firms will be slow to leverage the Internet in an aggressive way. It seems that lawyers are mostly trained to think that legal risk (liability) is somehow different from other kinds of business risk, that it lives in a kind of vacuum. That is why entrepreneurs often resist having lawyers participate directly in deal making, only bringing them in after the fact.

The Internet is a chaotic environment and obviously the online world has as much legal liability inherent in it as the business world in general. However, notice that this has not stopped the best and the brightest from forging new business models and inventing new industries out of whole cloth.

My point is this, those firms that are willing to take some calculated risks with their Internet strategy are likely, if executed properly, to build a sustainable competitive advantage if for no other reason that most of their competitors will be slow to follow. Slow on the Internet is a death knell. Once a prime piece of real estate is established it is difficult to move into the neighborhood.

Expect most of the innovation to come from attorneys that were born digital. They get it more than their elder brethren and have a lot less to lose.

Darkside of SaaS?

As we move more and more of our computing to the cloud one thing will become painfully obvious. It is not the service provider with the coolest interface or lowest cost that will win. It is the provider that can deliver 24/7 world class support. Many Web 2.0 providers do not yet understand that consumers are starting to run their businesses on these platforms. Scalability, availability and reliability are not just nice words but everything when your living depends on your online presence.

One of the most annoying things is the inability to talk to a human being when things go seriously wrong through no fault of your own. Here is a dirty little secret about SaaS: a major screw up on the provider's part can bring your online world tumbling down in a NY second. Try to find a number that you can call and ask a question like WTF just happened? Nope, can't do it. Just have to submit a ticket to the cloud and hope that someone responds in time to save that major deal you are working on.

Well maybe if you upgrade your support subscription you get a phone number to call. Nope, what you get is someone who will look at the ticket faster, but that does not mean that resources have been allocated. In other words, your entire online business could be in someone else's hands; talk about a risky proposition. Think that it won't happen to you? Think again. Does this mean that I have soured on my view that SaaS is the future. Not entirely. But you can be damn sure that I am going to better understand my support options and take my business where I am satisfied that top quality IT production support is available.

I want to collaborate with organizations that understand what a "production" website means. It means that I lose money when it is down. Which means that their quality assurance better be top notch and when the inevitable screw up happens that they respond like there hair is on fire. We are not there yet folks and it would not surprise me if some big name providers don't fall off the cliff.

Super Blogger Makes TIME 100

Link: Michael Arrington - The TIME 100 - TIME. Is this is a sign of things to come? No. Blogging (and new media in general) have completely transformed journalism. It is game, set & match. It has been for awhile. That is not news. So super blogger Arrington (of TechCrunch fame) makes the TIME 100, that is yesterday's news as well. Congratulations to Mike, but this is not a signal of anything, except the past.

New media will transform ALL knowledge based industries, including the practice of law. That has been a constant mantra here at Web-tones, but in some ways it is just stating the obvious. The transformation is already well underway. By the time the MSM starts writing about it, the transformation will probably be nearly complete for the early adopters. It is the way things work on the web. Right now, as we speak, there are cutting edge boutiques already creating the fodder that will be written about. There are even more fast followers lurking at the edges waiting for an opportunity to make a move.

But seeing a transformation of knowledge based industries is really not very visionary at all. It is an obvious extrapolation of where we are today. The reality is that EVERY industry is a knowledge based industry. Name one that isn't? The transformation that we are seeing is to the economic order as a whole. It is more far sweeping than the industrial age and the information age combined. The kinds of creative destruction that we are likely to see cannot be adequately described because we are only at the cusp.

It should be a fun ride. These are the most interesting of times.