The most critical resource of startup is time. Time is always against startup because startup always runs out of time. That’s why when you work in a startup you hate weekends.
Well, it’s more like a love-hate relationship: from one side weekends are great to spend a time with the family, but from another they are the slowest business days in the week, which is really tough.
It seems that only you work on a weekend and the rest of the world is frozen. Emails are slow, conference calls do not happen, the response that’s so important to you just does not arrive.
It’s all about the pulse. Some companies have a pulse of once a week. Take VCs. Their heartbeat happens on their partners meeting. How many times have you heard, we will discuss it on our next partners meeting and I will let you know.
Others have a pulse of once a month or quarter. Whatever these periods are, a normal startup pulse is hundreds times faster. And it does not stop on weekends. It’s 24/7 as opposite to 24/5. This misalignment is the source of great frustration.
Coming to a weekend and waiting 2 full days is an awful a lot of time, and time is your most critical resource.
You cannot change other pulses; neither can you change yours, so the best thing to do is to plan activities that are input-free: write a document, code, debug, plan or write a blog. One blog post suggestion – why you hate startup weekends.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Saturday, May 22, 2010
What is needed for a good TV application and how Google TV can help it
Despite what I wrote yesterday about my reservations regarding the Google TV, I do believe it can emerge as a great TV platform. But it need to focus more on what makes an application to be good on TV and less on bringing the web to the TV .
Example of good TV application is Netflix Watch Instantly that comes on one of the Netflix enabled devices. Everything about it is just right and meets all the criteria above.
Optimizing web site for TV isn’t enough. Take a look at YouTube. On a computer or mobile screens YouTube is the king and almost everything is right about it. But for TV it would need more than just optimization such as XL version of the site .
A peek at nowmov gives an idea of how different and better a TV-ready version of the YouTube might be. Definitely it is not an optimization of the YouTube site, but rather taking the YouTube content and presenting it completely differently, making the whole experience really entertaining and clickless. While I wouldn’t mind more personalization in the nowmov along with constant learning of my viewing tastes to make it even better for me, the idea is great and portable to the TV screen.
There is a whole set of applications that people try to port to TV. Think about status update on one of your social networking sites. What would be your first reaction when there is a message that your friend has a birthday? Right, writing him “Happy birthday to you! Wish you all the best”. No problem, sure, but wait, where is the remote, how on earth it got under the couch? Heck, why it does not write? Oh, no, I misspelled “birthday”, all over again… Not sure many people would do it on TV; probably most will retreat to the phones or laptops, which defeats the whole purpose of having this application on the TV.
People care less about the software platform on the TV but about what applications they have on it and how well these applications are adopted for the TV screen. Not every good web application will automatically be a good TV application.
When we sit in from of a computer, the most important questions are “what” and “where”. But when we finally relax on a couch to watch some TV, we usually would have an idea of what we want to watch, and the most important question will be “how”. Thus the search is not the most important thing for the TV.
Unlike “what and “where” the “how” question is mostly application specific (look at Netflix, YouTube XL and nowmov). If Google TV will leverage their strength in helping to solve the “How” it can be a winning proposition for consumers.
Google is in a best position in the world to create a TV platform that can address the right issues of creating a good native TV application. With its level of personalization, knowledge of what and how we do it might offer to applications developers something that other platforms will never be able to do.
A good stand alone application (not widget) for TV must be:
- Have TV optimized interface and TV only features
- Content discovery is for dummies (ideally – content is already discovered and arranged when you sit in front of the TV)
- Not requires text input (or it is limited to a bare minimum)
- Entertaining
- Video rich
- Clickless
- Highly personalized
- Have multiple family members configurations with a single 2 or 3 digits code if needed
Example of good TV application is Netflix Watch Instantly that comes on one of the Netflix enabled devices. Everything about it is just right and meets all the criteria above.
Optimizing web site for TV isn’t enough. Take a look at YouTube. On a computer or mobile screens YouTube is the king and almost everything is right about it. But for TV it would need more than just optimization such as XL version of the site .
A peek at nowmov gives an idea of how different and better a TV-ready version of the YouTube might be. Definitely it is not an optimization of the YouTube site, but rather taking the YouTube content and presenting it completely differently, making the whole experience really entertaining and clickless. While I wouldn’t mind more personalization in the nowmov along with constant learning of my viewing tastes to make it even better for me, the idea is great and portable to the TV screen.
There is a whole set of applications that people try to port to TV. Think about status update on one of your social networking sites. What would be your first reaction when there is a message that your friend has a birthday? Right, writing him “Happy birthday to you! Wish you all the best”. No problem, sure, but wait, where is the remote, how on earth it got under the couch? Heck, why it does not write? Oh, no, I misspelled “birthday”, all over again… Not sure many people would do it on TV; probably most will retreat to the phones or laptops, which defeats the whole purpose of having this application on the TV.
People care less about the software platform on the TV but about what applications they have on it and how well these applications are adopted for the TV screen. Not every good web application will automatically be a good TV application.
When we sit in from of a computer, the most important questions are “what” and “where”. But when we finally relax on a couch to watch some TV, we usually would have an idea of what we want to watch, and the most important question will be “how”. Thus the search is not the most important thing for the TV.
Unlike “what and “where” the “how” question is mostly application specific (look at Netflix, YouTube XL and nowmov). If Google TV will leverage their strength in helping to solve the “How” it can be a winning proposition for consumers.
Google is in a best position in the world to create a TV platform that can address the right issues of creating a good native TV application. With its level of personalization, knowledge of what and how we do it might offer to applications developers something that other platforms will never be able to do.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Why Web Does Not Make Sense on TV
This week was very rich for the TV world. It started with GigaOm report about how fast TV apps market will explode and continued with Google I/O conference announcements of Google TV. And I don’t buy both.
What Google Ignores with Google TV
Let me start with a statement – Web does not make sense on TV. I know - it’s quite an opposite of what Google says.
It’s been proven times again and again – first with the WebTV, than with HTPCs. While you can always find a bunch of enthusiasts that will adopt whatever new cool thing is, it will be difficult to convince the rest of the world that Web-on-TV makes sense, as they denied it in the last 15 years.
How often and for how long would you want to work with your remote? Just for the sake of exercise, take any remote and try to type an imaginary text (even with your TV turned off) – will you still be in that comfortable lean back, foot on the table position?
Nobody can beat Google in the search, neither on computer nor on mobile. And in both areas search is the king for everything. It’s just different environment with completely different requirements and habits.
Typing in a search box on the TV oftentimes requires several additional searches:
Web TV failed not because it wasn’t a good product , but because people really weren’t bought into this “better” web on TV concept. Don’t do better web for TV. Do what makes sense on TV.
General web does not make sense, specific applications designed for consumption on the TV do.
And that only one aspect of how difficult is to people to adopt web-on-TV concept, without even considering the whole complexity of the ecosystem and other powerful players in the field and their stakes (operators, studios, content providers, manufactures, retailers, middleware and chipset vendors, ISPs, etc.).
That’s why I believe this new initiative of Google TV will have a hard time to succeed.
TV Apps Market – how big the opportunity is?
3 days ago GigaOm published their report on TV applications, TV Apps: Evolution from Novelty to Mainstream. In particular, they predicted that TV apps market will grow to almost $2B in the 4 year from virtually zero this year (estimated sales in 2010 are $10M).
While I love GigaOm for their excellent content, this one just didn’t fit well. That growth is a huge bet.
First, it does not make sense from the perspective of the whole ecosystem. While connected TVs are really a cool thing and seems to be an industry direction, in order to achieve these numbers 4 things should happen first:
What Applications Are For TV?
Being in the TV applications space for the last few years, I’m familiar with many solutions and technologies related to the field, from widgets to specific applications and devices. Playing with many of them, I developed a simple set of criteria to decide whether an application is a good fit or not.
I will explore this in my next post.
What Google Ignores with Google TV
Let me start with a statement – Web does not make sense on TV. I know - it’s quite an opposite of what Google says.
It’s been proven times again and again – first with the WebTV, than with HTPCs. While you can always find a bunch of enthusiasts that will adopt whatever new cool thing is, it will be difficult to convince the rest of the world that Web-on-TV makes sense, as they denied it in the last 15 years.
How often and for how long would you want to work with your remote? Just for the sake of exercise, take any remote and try to type an imaginary text (even with your TV turned off) – will you still be in that comfortable lean back, foot on the table position?
Nobody can beat Google in the search, neither on computer nor on mobile. And in both areas search is the king for everything. It’s just different environment with completely different requirements and habits.
Typing in a search box on the TV oftentimes requires several additional searches:
- Search for the remote (under the couch, on the TV stand, in hands of the kid, under your butt, on the kitchen counter because it was on the tray)
- Search for the paper towel or napkin to wipe off this sandwich oil from the fingers (you do eat in front of the TV, don’t you?)
- Search for the person who will go and fetch the remote (from wherever it is found) and is also ok or comfortable with all this clicking on it
- Search for the reading glasses to be able to find the right buttons. It’s different to push the next channel, volume or even digits on the keypad than to type on the small full QWERTY remote.
Web TV failed not because it wasn’t a good product , but because people really weren’t bought into this “better” web on TV concept. Don’t do better web for TV. Do what makes sense on TV.
General web does not make sense, specific applications designed for consumption on the TV do.
And that only one aspect of how difficult is to people to adopt web-on-TV concept, without even considering the whole complexity of the ecosystem and other powerful players in the field and their stakes (operators, studios, content providers, manufactures, retailers, middleware and chipset vendors, ISPs, etc.).
That’s why I believe this new initiative of Google TV will have a hard time to succeed.
TV Apps Market – how big the opportunity is?
3 days ago GigaOm published their report on TV applications, TV Apps: Evolution from Novelty to Mainstream. In particular, they predicted that TV apps market will grow to almost $2B in the 4 year from virtually zero this year (estimated sales in 2010 are $10M).
While I love GigaOm for their excellent content, this one just didn’t fit well. That growth is a huge bet.
First, it does not make sense from the perspective of the whole ecosystem. While connected TVs are really a cool thing and seems to be an industry direction, in order to achieve these numbers 4 things should happen first:
- These TVs should be manufactured with more than few default applications preloaded to them
- These TVs should be sold to the consumers
- The right set of right applications should be developed
- These consumers should decide whether to (1) use these applications and (2) pay for them
While (3) and (4) seem obvious, in a context of the TV they have a different meaning, which I will explore later.
The same GigaOm reported just 4 month ago that the Apple AppStore generates about $250M a month, making it $3B a year. Comparing the whole ecosystem for apps on iPhone, Apple brand, existing app market before the emergence of the Apple, globalization of the iPhone, and most importantly, a perfect sense for mobile applications, it makes it a little stretching to assume the TV apps market is in the same ground field. This is my quick sanity check for this prediction.What Applications Are For TV?
Being in the TV applications space for the last few years, I’m familiar with many solutions and technologies related to the field, from widgets to specific applications and devices. Playing with many of them, I developed a simple set of criteria to decide whether an application is a good fit or not.
I will explore this in my next post.
Friday, May 14, 2010
My thoughts about Facebook privacy issues
I’m on Facebook, and many of my friends are on in too. When I decided to join, I sort of told myself that whatever I want to share with general public would be there, and if something I want to keep private I just will not publish it on the Facebook.
Facebook “friends” come and go. Not every friend there is my real friend. Some are friends, some are just interesting online personas that I befriended there because I like their content, but whom I never met in person.
How much private information I want to share with such people, or even with many people that I know and used to either work or hang out? Well, generally it would not much beyond already known information.
I post, share, like, befriend, comment, follow, become fan and do whatever I do on Facebook and it is clear that any key stroke or mouse click I made aren’t private anymore.
I’m there because I want to be there, because my friends are there and because I like seeing their updates, posts or stuff they find interesting and sometimes I comment or re-share. And eventually all this might to be open.
But this is my decision and when I decided to join Facebook I knew that whatever I put there one way or another is public. The old proverb says that if more than two people know a secret it’s not a secret anymore.
We at eMazeU are big believers in a need to keep some things privately or to share them only with a close circle of people (of course this applies mostly to videosharing and photosharing, as this is a content of eMazeU). That’s how eMazeU works and what we promote extensively. Read our blog post about privacy or our list of benefits our solution brings and one of which is complete privacy of shared content.
There are many ways to keep things private if you want, Facebook just isn’t one of them and never been. But isn’t that one of the things we actually like in Facebook?
Facebook “friends” come and go. Not every friend there is my real friend. Some are friends, some are just interesting online personas that I befriended there because I like their content, but whom I never met in person.
How much private information I want to share with such people, or even with many people that I know and used to either work or hang out? Well, generally it would not much beyond already known information.
I post, share, like, befriend, comment, follow, become fan and do whatever I do on Facebook and it is clear that any key stroke or mouse click I made aren’t private anymore.
I’m there because I want to be there, because my friends are there and because I like seeing their updates, posts or stuff they find interesting and sometimes I comment or re-share. And eventually all this might to be open.
But this is my decision and when I decided to join Facebook I knew that whatever I put there one way or another is public. The old proverb says that if more than two people know a secret it’s not a secret anymore.
We at eMazeU are big believers in a need to keep some things privately or to share them only with a close circle of people (of course this applies mostly to videosharing and photosharing, as this is a content of eMazeU). That’s how eMazeU works and what we promote extensively. Read our blog post about privacy or our list of benefits our solution brings and one of which is complete privacy of shared content.
There are many ways to keep things private if you want, Facebook just isn’t one of them and never been. But isn’t that one of the things we actually like in Facebook?
Monday, May 3, 2010
Launch of eMazeU DivvyTV
We are launching eMazeU DivvyTV – http://www.eMazeU.com/product. Last week was among the most sleepless weeks in a very long time. But also it was filled with a lot of great fun.
We are launching just in time for the Mother’s Day, almost at the 90th minute (if you know the soccer term), and hope our customers will have a chance to buy the DivvyTV for their moms.
eMazeU DivvyTV is really a simple video mailbox on TV, and everyone feels comfortable using it. With eMazeU DivvyTV you will enjoy friends and family videos and photos sent directly to your TV, and have real-life experience seeing your loved ones so close up. Check out the movie.
Hope you enjoy the clip, browse the site and tell us what you think. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
Here it starts…
We are launching just in time for the Mother’s Day, almost at the 90th minute (if you know the soccer term), and hope our customers will have a chance to buy the DivvyTV for their moms.
eMazeU DivvyTV is really a simple video mailbox on TV, and everyone feels comfortable using it. With eMazeU DivvyTV you will enjoy friends and family videos and photos sent directly to your TV, and have real-life experience seeing your loved ones so close up. Check out the movie.
Hope you enjoy the clip, browse the site and tell us what you think. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
Here it starts…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
