About Lee Devlin

I'm Lee Devlin from Greeley, Colorado.

EntConnect 2006

Share

The EntConnect conference is scheduled for March 23-26th, 2006. It has been going on for over 10 years in Denver and it centers around startups and entrepreneurship. I’ve been a regular attendee and always find it valuable and fun. The conference started with a magazine called Midnight Engineering that was all about running bootstrap businesses. Sadly, the magazine is no longer in print, but one of the original conference organizers, John Gaudio, continued to host the conference and a loyal core group of regulars continues to meet each year.

The conference includes a day of skiing in Colorado’s legendary champagne powder (which is optional) followed by several days of informal meetings and presentations about various topics of interest to entrepreneurs. Some topics covered in the past have included entrepreneurial law, marketing, blogging, company valuation, search engine optimization, and much more. I usually find the personal stories behind each of the attendees’ businesses the most enlightening part of the conference.

The cost of the conference is $199, but if you sign up early (by next Tuesday 2/28), the cost is only $99. The room rates are also very reasonable.

The webpage for the conference can be found here.

Cali

Share

Callie A few months ago I posted about our cat Bailey, who had passed away after 14 years. It was pretty sad around here since Terri and I had grown so attached to him. Our household seemed to revolve around him. Shortly after that, our veterinarian told us about a local cat whose owner could no longer take care of her and encouraged us to take a look and see if we wanted to adopt her. After a string of 3 male orange tabbies, I guess we were ready for a change. Now that we’ve had a chance to get to know her, she’s becoming like a new family member. Technically, she’s a tortoise-shell cat, but her previous owner called her ‘Calico’, which isn’t really correct, since a Calico cat has some white spots along with the dark and orange, whereas a tortoise shell is all dark. But it would be cruel to change her name after she’s had it for 9 years for a simple technicality. We just call her Cali and it fits her.

When we first brought her home, she hid in the basement under the basement steps and seemed somewhat afraid of us. I suppose that being taken from her familiar environment scared her a bit. We began to wonder if we were going to have one of those cats you only know of because of the missing cat food. But now she’s gotten to know us and goes wherever she wants and no longer hides in the basement. She follows us around everywhere we go.

An essential duty for any cat in this household is to be a good mouser. Terri doesn’t like mice and will scream at the top of her lungs if she sees one, especially if it’s alive. So it was quite gratifying to know that this new cat will catch, kill, and eat the little monsters. We let her in the garage where some mice have taken up residence thanks in part to an ample supply of birdseed that they like as much as the birds do. The birdseed is there to feed the birds that visit the feeder outside our window. The birdfeeder is really there to entertain the cat. So there’s a certain symmetry to this whole food chain that all stems from a desire to entertain cats and make sure they don’t get bored.

Matt Mullenweg, the founder of WordPress, once remarked on a Podcast that his blog used to be really lame where he’d write about his cat or what he had for dinner, so it’s not that I don’t know writing about one’s cat is lame, it’s just that with a blog you can do whatever you want and, if I want to write about my cat, I’m going to do it. With a blog, one day you’re a tech industry pundit, the next you’re baring your soul, or at least disclosing personal information about your pets. And that’s what makes a blog personal.

But I’ll refrain from writing about what I had for dinner…

Google 2.0

Share

It seems to me that Google is in the news everywhere I look. In just the past few months, there have been not one, but two books written about Google. I’ve listened to both books and to summarize: two Stanford Ph.D. candidates worked together to create the world’s best search engine right around the time that everyone knew Search was dead and portals were going to be the source of all potential income on the Internet. They had no idea how to monetize the service, thinking, erroneously as it turned out, that they could license search technology. The Google search technology is the ‘secret sauce’ that makes Google better than every other search engine available. Eventually they found a business model by selling keyword targeted advertisements (Google Adwords and Adsense) and the rest is history. Now their stock is trading at a P/E of nearly 100 and the market cap of the fledging company is over $120B. A P/E rating of over 100 in itself isn’t alarming. For example, when a company is having a down year a P/E can get quite astronomical since when you divide a large market cap with a small earnings, you can get a very large number for the P/E. However, Google is insanely profitable making nearly 50% profit on sales of $5B so a P/E of 100 is truly staggering. In order to quell this embarrassingly high profit, Google appears to be speculating in the high tech market by purchasing really cool technologies whose only common theme is that none of them show any obvious way of making money.

Don’t get me wrong, I love Google. I use it as my home page. Making things like Blogger, Google Earth, Picasa, and Google Maps available for free without the ad spam usually associated with such services is extremely generous. But I can’t help feeling that their recent buying spree shows some similarities of teenagers with a pile of cash. You won’t find them investing in any blue chip stocks, but you can rest assured that all the latest high tech toys and cool technologies are under consideration. I could hardly believe it when I read that Google bought a Boeing 767. I’ve been a pilot and aircraft owner for 15 years and have some experience with the costs of owning and operating (admittedly small) aircraft. The costs associated with running a B767 for a few executives is in the stratosphere. If you contrast a B767 with a Gulfstream 5, today’s gold standard for bizjets, it will be many times the operating cost. Also, a B767 won’t get into smaller regional airports, which is one of the attractions of bizjets in the first place, i.e., to avoid the expense and inconvenience of international airports and to arrive closer to your target destination. The complete story on the Boeing 767 purchase has yet to be written, but it’s in stark contrast to the frugal practice of purchasing Google’s 175,000+ servers as parts and assembling them by hand, presumably to save money.

It’s really not Google’s fault the stock is trading so high. People fall in love with stocks of companies whose products they use all the time, and when that company happens to be profitable, then all reason can fly out the window. Just about all companies that come in contact with such windfalls have to do something with the money, before it evaporates into thin air. So a buying spree induced by high valuation is nothing new. AOL used its unrealistic valuation to purchase Time-Warner, a company with real assets, and Time-Warner has been trying to forget about it ever since.

One of the reasons I think the Google stock price is not sustainable is because more than 99% of its income comes from Adwords and Adsense, and these revenue streams are in persistent danger of being co-opted by spammers who are creating link farms and splogs to exploit them. If there were other sources of income, or even other potential income sources on the horizon, that would add some stability. But I just don’t see it coming with the other services they’ve acquired.

I’ve been experimenting with Adsense recently on my own webpages just to see what the fuss was about. With a .4% click through rate and an average of $.30 commission per click, I won’t be quitting my day job any time soon. If I had a Starbucks habit, the Adsense income could cover me for a day out of each month. With such meager earnings for a site containing real information that gets thousands of hits per month, it seems like a tough way to make money. I suppose my click through rate could be higher if the algorithms that did keyword searches were smarter. For example, on my Ham Radio page, evidently a company that sells hams (as in the meat) has outbid the companies that have Amateur (Ham) Radio equipment for sale ;-). Similarly, the rest of the ads are equally lame pitching items that I’m embarrassed to see on my web pages. I wish I could provide Google with a list of sure-fire keywords that I know would be better target readers rather than letting the algorithms do the choosing based on words on my pages. I’ll continue to run this experiment for a few more weeks and report back if things have improved at all. If not, I’ll try something else. It won’t be for the money, but just so I can have some first hand experience with keyword advertising services.

In reading about the recent AOL stock deal where Google bought 5% of the company, all I could think of was “Why AOL?”. Considering Google’s mantra is ‘Don’t be Evil’, teaming up with AOL seems to me as the ultimate sellout. AOL is completely bereft of anything of value other than their captive audience that they hang on to with a maniacal death grip. Like many others, I was an AOL member in the 1990’s. My difficulty with them occurred when I tried to drop the service after I signed up for broadband. First of all, AOL makes it impossible to forward or even export your email, so that works as a deterrent for dropping the service quickly because you periodically need to check it for email until you’re able to notify everyone of your new email address. But the true face of evil showed itself when I called up to cancel the AOL account and got the run around from their people who would make up any excuse to prevent me from quitting the service. I was told lie after lie and thought that I’d have to hire a lawyer to get them to stop charging my credit card. The depths that they stooped to prevent me from leaving were unbelievable. The only way I was able to quit was when my credit card number got stolen and they were unable to continue charging it. So I don’t have a lot of respect for AOL. And since dial-up is so completely dead, I have to wonder what keeps their considerable, yet dwindling, user base hanging on to them. Buying into AOL seems a little like jumping the shark and I expect that the end is near. Not the end for Google, which still has the best search engine available, just for its over-inflated stock valuation.

Web 2.0

Share

I’ve been hearing a lot about Web 2.0 lately and was wondering exactly what is meant by the term. Wikipedia, itself a Web 2.0 concept, has the following definition:

  • a transition of websites from isolated information silos to sources of content and functionality, thus becoming a computing platform serving web applications to end users.
  • a social phenomenon referring to an approach to creating and distributing Web content itself, characterised by open communication, decentralization of authority, freedom to share and re-use, and “the market as a conversation.”
  • a more organized and categorized content, with a more developed deeplinking web architecture.
  • a shift in economic value of the web, up past a trillion dollars surpassing that of the dot com boom of the late 1990s.

However, a consensus upon its exact meaning has not yet been reached.

Tim O’Reilly wrote what is considered a seminal piece on Web 2.0, but even after reading it twice, it’s still difficult to articulate exactly what makes something a Web 2.0 vs. Web 1.0 concept. According to O’Reilly, things like blogs, wikis, podcasts, RSS, and Flickr are examples of Web 2.0 concepts.

One of the common underlying themes I’ve noticed is that the technologies associated with Web 2.0 are open and free. They don’t rely on proprietary software. In the event that they are web-based, they either don’t have an obvious business model (like Wikipedia, for example) or they have a lightweight advertising subsidized model that seems reasonable to most people. You wouldn’t think a Web 2.0 application would lock-in users, but some of the services seem like they are handing out free drugs with a future expectation of a creating dependent addicts who will begin to pay once the freebies run out. In most cases that I know of, when a free service suddenly is no longer free, it creates a mass exodus toward a new free service which users expect to remain free forever. Any service that costs money to run will eventually have to pass those costs on to someone, and the users of the service seem like the most likely candidates. You can write software and give it away for free, but when there are servers humming away consuming power and bandwidth, there is no end to the accumulating costs and so eventually the piper will have to be paid.

It will be interesting to see how Web 2.0 unfolds. According to Tim Berners-Lee, who just started his own blog, Web 2.0 is much closer to what he expected of the web in the first place.