Tag: dumb ideas

Dude. What is wrong with the executives over at eBay? They just bought StumbleUpon.

I classify this in the same business “smart-ness” as the Skype buyout from a few years ago (a total waste of $2.6 billion).

eBay saw something cool with lots of traffic and decided to buy it. Just because it has money doesn’t mean you should buy it. You don’t see General Motors buying out 7-Eleven, and you never will. When people from a completely different industry with no expertise in your business model suddenly are in charge, shit starts to hit the fan.

What does eBay have to gain from Stumble? Traffic. But it’s not the kind of traffic that benefits eBay. People who Stumble are looking for interesting reads, funny pictures, cool videos, or anything else to waste time. It’s not about shopping, it’s not about auctions, and it’s certainly not targeted enough to be efficiently used to point visitors to eBay auctions.

What does StumbleUpon have to gain from this buyout? Pretty much nothing. If I was an investor, I would flee (sell my shares). The only “good” eBay will bring is stumbles to their auctions. Wait, that’s not good at all. Stumble is an entertainment site, whereas eBay is an eCommerce site. The eBay executives obviously know this difference, but I believe they are overestimating the ease of converting this traffic into revenue.

“Oh, you voted up the Wii article so you must want to see Wii auctions!” I really hope that’s not where Stumble ends up, because I’d seriously stop using it. Stumble is about anonymous voting that lets the quality float to the top. The only time you’d ever see an eBay auction is when it’s a gag auction that everybody can laugh at.

StumbleUpon is a service that helps people waste time. You click a button and it sends you to a random website. People that see these web sites vote them up. This makes subsequent “stumbles” better targeted and of higher quality content. The whole thing is far more addictive than it sounds. And, currently, the quality of the stumbles are awesome. They make money by letting advertisers purchase traffic, but it is done discretely, and the advertisers are filtered to ensure quality.

Over all, this is one of those deals where a company got bought out so that its new owner can accidentally smother it.

So Sony’s goal is to be the “Mercedes of the video game field.” And it’s true that there are various models of Mercedes: some that are pricey, and some that are really pricey. So logic goes to show that having two PS3 price points would get the “budget” consumers. Right?

Wrong. Unfortunately, when your “budget” machine’s price is still at the top of a market that is historically cost conscious, you have a problem. In the car market, having a BMW, any BMW, means you’re a big shot now. When your product is not a status symbol, you simply can’t apply the same logic! A PS3 is hardly gloat material. So if you’re buying it, you’re buying it for value, not to show off your salary.

Add to this the fact that the price range of the machine is already double that of some of its competitors, and you end up with a situation where most consumers can’t even consider buying it. The people still interested simply aren’t counting pennies because they can afford $600 either way. So if you can afford to get this machine and believe it has a ton of value, why would you skimp?

Apparently this is exactly what is going on right now: nobody is buying the 20GB PS3s.

Best Buy is no longer carrying 20GB PS3 models.

This is extremely troubling for Sony. Did you ever hear of a retailer actually abandon the XBOX 360 Core because it sold less (which it does)? No. In order for a retailer to drop a product, it must sell really bad. It is essentially a tell that the PS3 20GBs collect dust and actually negate profits for Best Buy. In short, they are better off putting something else — for example, a Wii — in its place.

It is also troubling because Best Buy is a major force in the consumer electronics market. Let’s say I go to Best Buy to buy a console. What am I going to see? $250 (Wii), $300 (360 Core), $400 (360), and $600 (PS3). That’s a pretty big jump. Without that middle price tier, the PS3’s price sticks out like a very sore thumb.

Lastly, with Best Buy ducking out, you can expect other retailers to follow soon.

How does this all relate to the stupidity of having two models? Because Sony has to cater to both the 20GB and 60GB models forever, as if they both sold equally well. They have more overhead in developing patches for both, and any software or hardware differences in the machines will need to be kept in the minds of every developer of the PS3 forever down its life cycle. Good luck finding those wired PS3 controllers when the PS3 20GB market tanks and nobody sells wired controllers anymore (the 60GB one uses wireless). Or worse yet, it will suck for the eBay market when a 20GB owner decides to offload his or her system.

These are all factors that will hurt the PS3’s over all image in the long run.

This is a pretty heavy blow to Sony.

So now there is buzz that Google is producing a phone. Supposedly, this phone will sport a touch screen and be a thin client. As in, your data is stored on the grid and therefore accessible from anywhere with an Internet connection (especially your phone).

Only a fool would believe this rumor.

The concept is almost believable, but the idea that Google is producing consumer electronics is a little sketchy. Even if they did, I’m wondering how Google can price this competitively without the bulk that a company such as Apple could sell.

And pictures were leaked to Engadget. Look, it has  touch screen and no buttons, but it isn’t a music player. Apple just reinvented how phones are defined. Now they must all play music. All of them! Especially the ones that involve touch screen interfaces or cost more than $200. All of them. Welcome to iWorld where everybody compares your phone to the iPhone.

So if Google came up with this design all on their own: bravo. But it’s a shame that Apple stole all the thunder two months ago when they decided to drop the iPhone bomb and pretty much doom all other phones to a bucket we refer to as the “iPhone Killers.”

You just can’t beat good marketing, and that’s one thing Apple has got right. On that topic, you might be interested on the most interesting but damning aspect of this phone:

Apparently, Google is planning to build distribution relationships with multiple carriers by allowing them to minimize subscription and marketing costs. In other words, Google will market the phone online and carriers will fulfill.

Wow, good luck. Google’s marketing is always about features and functionality while Apple is always about form factor and style. I repeat: Apple is going to clean up on this fight.

That’s assuming this isn’t a stupid hoax, which I still think it is. Why would Google go after a totally unrelated market only to become a me-too product and potentially scare all its mobile partners away from using Google Search. That’s the last thing in the world it wants, but it’s exactly what would happen if it competed against every wireless carrier and phone maker in the world.

I call this fake!

The CEO of Google is on Apple’s Board of Directors. Why would he compete with iPhone on the eve of its release? Next time, think of a more viable fairy tale!

On this topic, I’d like to say that the Zune Phone bullshit I talked about last month hasn’t materialized. I’m glad, for Microsoft’s sake, that it was just a rumor. I really think they’d be shooting themselves in the foot just as badly as Google if they released a Zune Phone. Now that I think about it, they have that same problem as Google in that they too have a search engine they want adopted by mobile users.

Let’s keep the rumors real.

You read the title correctly. Cisco Systems bought Tribe.net. Cisco is that company that makes routers and switches. They bought Tribe.net, a not-very-popular social networking site. If Cisco paid any more than $100 million, we’ll call this the dumbest purchase of 2007. Even $10 million would be too much money.

Cisco has no experience in this realm, but apparently somebody in management drank a little bit too much of the social networking Kool Aid. Proof? Well, it turns out Cisco bought another social networking company last week called Five Across. According to that development, Cisco did it because… well, check out this quote:

Based on conversations with three or four different Cisco executives in recent months, it is clear Cisco sees social networking and the wider Web 2.0 phenomenon as ways to drive Internet traffic, and thus traffic over their routers and other networking gear — and, it follows, more revenue for Cisco.

I guess by that logic, oil companies should buy amusement parks to get more people outside and driving. The logic is retarded, and highly troubling that it’s coming from executives themselves. Cisco is chasing a pipe dream.

Tribe.net might as well have asked Krispy Kreme to buy them because the fit is that bad. I can’t see any competitive edge coming out from either company’s assets that will help the other. They are simply unrelated. One caters to free loading teenagers while the other builds hardware for paying corporate clients. One is sales and support based while the other is supported by ad revenue. One sells tangible goods while the other gives away a service on a website. One has over 50,000 employees and the other has less than 10. One is a proven fighter in its sector, and the other got smashed into obscurity and nearly went bankrupt.

The New York Times calls it a “curious pairing.” I call it dumb, especially on Cisco’s part.

The new social networking players, which include Cisco … say that social networks will soon be as ubiquitous as regular Web sites. They are aiming to create tools to let ordinary people, large companies and even presidential candidates create social Web sites tailored for their own customers, friends, fans and employees.

Cisco is hoping to use this new resource to eventually create customizable, personalized social networks. They believe that social networks will become a commodity. Ning is already doing exactly that and it has a two year head start. If Cisco was really committed to this vision of theirs, they should have bought Ning.

Besides, if an eight person company can build something that you plan on re-developing into something else, why not just hire 20 people and do it from the ground up, the way you need it to be? Why hack an already existing system that was built from the ground up to compete with Myspace and Facebook when you are after a whole different market? Frankly, even the technical justification doesn’t make sense.

And if Cisco truly believes social networking will become ubiquitous, which I can understand, they need to start on a new technological foot. Social networks will become a commodity when open protocols for exchanging information between them becomes open and published. Much like HTML of today, social networks of the future will communicate on open protocols to exchange data. That’s the only way they’ll ever get as common place as Cisco sees it. And tribe.net isn’t getting them any closer to that path. You would think a major producer of hardware that relies on open protocols would understand this best.

Congratulations on the big pay day, Tribe.net owners. You just schooled some heavy weight businessmen from their hard earned money. In closing, the founder of Ning said:

The idea that Cisco is going to be a force in social networking is about as plausible as Ning being a force in optical switches.

I understand Cisco’s motives for buying Tribes.net, but if you want to branch out into other markets by buying companies, you do it by buying winners, not has-beens.

I consider this rumor bullshit, but I thought I’d cover it for the sake of painting a fuller picture.

According to CrunchGear, Microsoft is going to release a 4G enabled Zune Phone in the next few months. This would make it one of the fastest smart phones on the market and a music playing device.

I call bullshit. This is hype brought to the next level. A respectable site like CrunchGear shouldn’t be making these huge logic jumps to arrive at these conclusions. This is reporting gone awry where someone jumps to a conclusion first and then fills the gaps with whatever they can find.

Their only real evidence is an FCC filing for a “consumer broadband access and networking” device. Realistically, most people would conclude it means Microsoft wants to enter the smart phone market with its own branded device. You know, maybe a smaller Origami or something. Really now.

…pending FCC approval, the specter-like Zune Phone will hit the streets sometime in May, a full month before the iPhone.

They’re going to throw together a device in the next three months?

You have to be kidding me. Even Microsoft isn’t that stupid. They spent five years making Origami. Over a year making a simple music device. And you’re going to tell me they’re going to essentially toss these things together not even six months after they release Zune 1.0? You’re saying that they are ready to stab at all of their mobile handset partners in the back barely a year after they finally gained a significant foothold on the market? Even Microsoft isn’t that stupid.

And then there’s the Zune.

The Zune Phone would seriously undermine the regular Zune if it has the feature CrunchGear mentions:

The Zune Phone remedies this by allowing you to share music not via WiFi, but via WiMax, so that anyone on your friends list who is online can sample your music, and vice versa. By using the mobile WiMax network, you can be in New York and your friend can be in San Jose and you can send him that Shins song you like.

Cool. Okay, so who the fuck want to buy the shitty regular Zune that only works at voice range now when you have to compare its neutered sharing feature to that of its phone counterpart. Come on! It hasn’t even been six months since the Zune was released. Releasing a Zune Phone would bury Microsoft’s ambitions of gaining any significant lower tier market share.

Lastly, it took Apple three years to make the beautiful UI of the iPhone. It is the brain child of years of development on the phone plus the knowledge gleamed from the iPod. Now Microsoft is going to release a Zune-killing Zune Phone when the Zune 1.0 isn’t even polished? They’re going to add a significant amount of new features to the Zune, including dealing with the number-pad issue, and tossing in a browser, and still do it in only six months after the Zune’s initial release?

Apple didn’t rush its iPhone out because it wanted to enter the super-crowded cell phone market with machine guns blazing. If Microsoft enters it with a half-assed rushed phone, it will get slaughtered. Apple has an additional edge due to consumers practically begging for years for an iPhone to be released. That’s the only reason their phone is getting so much attention. Microsoft can’t fight toe-to-toe with Apple on this, especially not with a rushed product.

Besides, their real competitor in the cell phone market isn’t Apple; it’s that other 99% market share that is held tightly by wireless monopolies, proven smart phone manufacturers with an entrenched corporate customer base, and the very partners Microsoft would stab in the back by releasing this phone.

This would be an interesting development, but it’s pure speculative garbage at this point. If Microsoft really did this, it would be a huge, retarded move.

Facebook has just inked a deal with Comcast to produce and distribute a new show called Facebook Diaries. The idea is that Facebook users would submit videos around a specific topic and then the best ones get selected to be shown on the show.

Users will be encouraged to submit videos around themes such as “who am I?” “heartbreak,” and “life during wartime,” Cutler said. The best ones will land in “Facebook Diaries.”

The show would be available both on the Internet and on TV through Comcast’s Video on Demand service – the first of its kind.

This is the lamest idea I’ve ever seen Facebook try. It’s painful to know that the entire premise is to consolidate 20 or 30 otherwise mundane YouTube clips into an ad-laced half hour long show. It’s strange that they’ve already planned a 10 episode season.

But it’s outright moronic that they decided to side-step YouTube! In a psychotic move, Facebook has chosen the Comcast sponsored video site Ziddio – A domain name that so badly resembling “Video with a Z”, that they had to buy Ziddeo.com just to make sure you don’t misspell it (which I did – twice). Its also slow, which is amazing for it being owned by Comcast. And lastly, its video player’s interface is plain terrible. Go ahead. Visit their site. Wait 10 seconds for it to load. Watch in horror as a really crappy clip starts to automatically play. Now try to change the volume. Be shocked at how bad a video player interface can be done.

Why would you produce online content only to have it hosted by a (crappy) no-name video hosting site? We already know if the show is even half decent, users will just post it up on YouTube within the hour anyway. But even worse, if the show is half-crappy, nobody will ever bother to see it.

Why would they do this? Perhaps they got blinded by the idea of being able to have their precious TV show appear on Comcast’s Video on Demand service. Whereas had it been a sponsored channel on YouTube, whose primary demographic is shared by Facebook, it would have been seen by virtually everybody on YouTube at least once (even if the show sucked).

Perhaps Google (Okurt) or YouTube is somehow seen as a competitor to Facebook. Maybe Google’s ads don’t pay well. Perhaps Zuckerberg just loves to smoke crack. Either way, this show already reeks of failure.