SiliconBeat

The people and companies driving the innovation of Silicon Valley

Post archive for ‘Future of Media’

Zynga revenues still growing but users declining as competitors close the gap. Can CastleVille win some new fans?(7)

Zynga released its latest quarterly earnings number in an updated prospectus. Dean Takahashi at VentureBeat has a good overview of the numbers:

Zynga reported net income of $12.5 million in the third quarter ended Sept. 30, down 54 percent from $27 million a year ago, according to anupdated S1 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The performance isn’t stellar, but it’s not so bad as to suggest Zynga’s planned initial public offering is in trouble.

Revenue was $307 million in the quarter, up 80 percent from $170.6 million a year ago. In other words, Zynga is working harder for the profits it gets by generating a lot more revenue compared to the past.

In the second quarter, Zynga reported only $1.4 million in profits on $280 million in revenue, so the third quarter report is an improvement on a quarter-to-quarter basis.”

What’s interesting are the user metrics. From the filing:

“According to AppData, as of September 30, 2011, we had the largest player audience on Facebook, with more MAUs on Facebook than the next eight social game developers combined.”

In the previous filing, Zynga had as many users as the next 15 developers combined as of June 30.

Also:

“Our players are also more engaged, with our games being played by more than 58 million average daily active users, or DAUs, worldwide as of September 30, 2011.”

That’s down from 60 million at the end of June. And the quarter included the release of two new games: Empires & Allies and Adventure World. Also, monthly average users fell from 232 million to 230 million in the quarter.

Finally:

“According to AppData, as of September 30, 2011, our games were played by more DAUs than the next 14 social game developers combined.”

That number is down from 30 at the end of June.

So, as Takahashi notes:

“Zynga is working harder for the profits it gets by generating a lot more revenue compared to the past.”

The good news, as Zynga prepare for an IPO in the next few weeks, is that it’s coaxing more revenue out of fewer players. And Zynga has a big pipeline of games coming. That includes CastleVille, which will launch in the next couple of weeks.

The CastleVille release is the latest in Zynga’s “Ville” franchise that includes FarmVille and CityVille.

“This is really built on the shoulders of the games that came before it,” said Bill Jackson, the Zynga creative director who led a team based in Dallas that built the game.  ”It’s built on the shoulders of giants.”

Jackson was giving me a preview of the games a few days ago. And the quality is indeed impressive.

CastleVille is set in Medieval times and has many elements that will be familiar to Zynga players. In this case, the goal is to build the castle of your dreams by engaging in a series of quests. A preview of the game demonstrated how Zynga continues to push the edge in terms of graphics as well as music, which includes the use of a full symphony to create the soundtrack.

Where the game pushes into new territory is in its expanded use of narrative. There is a story at the heart of it that players can choose how they follow, rather than having quests or goals dictated to them as in previous games.

At its heart, CastleVille remains a social game, but it also shows how Zynga is moving toward creating massively multiplayer experiences. The question now is whether the rising production values and the evolving game experience will draw new players as well as longtime Zynga fans.


Share/Save/Bookmark

Leave a comment

Why Twitter should sell and Google should buy(9)

There were two tantalizing tidbits that broke yesterday about Twitter.

The first was a nice scoop by All Things D’s Kara Swisher that Andreessen Horowitz had bought $80 million dollars worth of Twitter’s stock from employees in a secondary placement. Every more interesting, though also more vague, was a report by Swisher’s sister publication, the Wall Street Journal, about some possible acquisition talks between Twitter and Facebook and Google:

“As Internet valuations climb and bankers and would-be buyers circle Silicon Valley in an increasingly frothy tech market, many eyes are on one particularly desirable, if still enigmatic, target: Twitter. Discussions with at least some potential suitors have produced an estimated valuation of $8 billion to $10 billion.
Executives at both Facebook Inc. and Google Inc., among other companies, have held low-level talks with those at Twitter Inc. in recent months to explore the prospect of an acquisition of the messaging service, according to people familiar with the matter. The talks have so far gone nowhere, these people say.”

That’s an odd way to start a story, because it reports the talks and then tells us not to take them too seriously. Okay. The story justifies itself by saying what’s really interesting is that buyers are talking about an $8 billion to $10 billion price tag for Twitter.

I’m sure the Twitter folks are stubbornly clinging to their independence. But they shouldn’t. They should take the money. And they should take it from Google. And Facebook should walk away.

I know popular sentiment in tech circles is for Twitter to stay independent. Someone I respect a lot, Matthew Ingram at GigaOm, wrote a post, “Please Twitter, Don’t Sell to Google or Facebook.”

Ingram writes

“One of the best things about Twitter, despite all the problems it has had in the not-too-distant past with reliability and other issues, is that it is totally, 100-percent focused on being a real-time communications network. Being bought by either Google or Facebook might bring a big payoff, and substantial financial and operational resources, but it would almost certainly dilute that focus — simply because it would be a small part of a much larger company — and that would be a shame just when the service is starting to show its real potential.”

But with all due respect, let me say, “Please Twitter, do sell to Google.”

Here’s why:  I still don’t believe Twitter has a sustainable business model.

Twitter, of course, believes it does. And when I see smart people like Andreessen Horowitz buying shares at this relatively late date, I believe they see some there there. But I don’t.

The reason has to do with Twitter’s fundamental relationship to me. I don’t think Twitter knows all that much about me. And I don’t think there’s much of interest it can leverage to advertisers.

Let’s compare Twitter to the two potential acquirers. Facebook is going to be an advertising monster because it has an unprecedented amount of information about me, my friends, and my likes. It is my default Web profile. And it’s still in the early stages of learning how to use all that data. But its knowledge of me is the stuff that advertisers have probably dreamed of, well, ever since there has been advertising.

Google knows far less about me, and what it does know is muddled. If it follows my searches from home, it probably thinks I’m interested in technology, Duke University basketball, Star Wars, Captain Underpants, and Barbie. That’s because my whole family uses that PC. What has made them so successful is that they do a better job than anyone else at guessing who I am and what my interests are. Much of that comes directly from my search queries.

So Facebook knows who I am. Google is great at guessing at who I am. Where does that leave Twitter?

My profile information at Twitter is spare. There’s little way for it to know what tweets I might have read, unless I click on something, which I rarely do. It might draw some inference from my friends and followers, but that’s a weak pool of information.

Twitter probably doesn’t even know how deeply I engage with the service. Yes, I visit the Twitter homepage once a day, or so. But I have TweetDeck running all day, across three Twitter accounts I manage. I have glimpsed a promoted Tweet there once or twice, but rarely. I click on links in tweets, but that doesn’t mean I endorse or like the content, just that I was curious.

Given the way people use Twitter, and the poor quality of information it collects, I don’t have any expectation that it will be a compelling place for advertisers. As for any paid services, Twitter is so consistently behind the curve in feature development, it’s hard to imagine that they will build any specialized features that they could charger power users for.

In sum: No business model here. And you know what? That’s okay.

We have this default assumption that any company or service that can attract a kajillion users certainly must be able to monetize them. This is a kind of article of faith in Silicon Valley, but it’s wildly misplaced. As evidence, I would point to the most important piece of technology that may just be the worst business on the Web:

The browser.

There was a brief moment when Netscape asked us to pay $30 for the browser. But Microsoft put an end to that. And for the past 15 years or so, the browser has been free. Three of the four big ones are now made by big companies that don’t expect any revenue from them: Explorer, Safari, and Chrome. The browsers allow them to collect data on our Web surfing habits, but don’t put cash into their pockets. The other, FireFox, is developed under a non-profit.

I think Twitter is like that. It can be an important service that another company can use to enhance other things it does. The question then, is who is the best buyer?

The answer: Google.

As Ingram mentioned, Google needs to get social in the worst way. On the plus side, I think it has the engineering and the infrastructure to help Twitter fix its reliability problems once and for all. And I think it could help develop analytic tools that could help maximize Twitter’s limited revenue upside. And combining that user data with our search data would hopefully enhance Google overall.

Is there a chance that Google could snuff out all that is magical about Twitter? Yep. But I think it’s a chance worth taking to ensure that Twitter continues to exist.

A deal with Facebook would be a mistake for both asides. Ingram is right to point out that Facebook probably doesn’t have the cash to do the deal. But that aside, what would Facebook do with Twitter? I don’t think it could directly integrate Twitter, because it would mangle both services. The friend and follower dynamics are too different. And I’m not sure it brings any new users into the fold. Possibly Facebook could become a kind of social media holding company, owning both Facebook and Twitter, but operating them independently (though with friendlier integration). But that seems way too distracting.

No, at this point, there’s not enough upside for Facebook.

All this said, I think chances for a deal any time soon are remote. Twitter probably has enough money to run for awhile. It seems able to keep raising more private money, both for the company and to let employees cash out. And I’m sure the company wants to give its advertising business its best shot.

I think the real pressure, here, is on Google. In my mind, there is no amount of money that Google could pay for Twitter that would be too much. Not because of the revenue potential, but because it might inject some social thinking into Google’s engineering-driven DNA.

Google should put crazy money on the table until it’s piled so high, Twitter and its investors have no choice but to accept.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Leave a comment

Former Digg CEO Jay Adelson and the confessions of a start-up addict(4)

Jay Adelson speaking at FailCon 2010. Photo by Dean Takahashi of VentureBeat.

Jay Adelson speaking at FailCon 2010. Photo by Dean Takahashi of VentureBeat.

As executive confessions go, the one delivered by former Digg CEO Jay Adelson in a public forum this week stands out as one of the most remarkable ones I’ve ever seen for both its brutal honesty and fearless self examination.

The occassion was a fireside chat at FailCon 2010 with Cathy Brooks, who runs the Story Navigation workshops that I wrote about previously. I wrote a column about FailCon that you can read here. Even though I couldn’t fit Adelson’s remarks into that column, I couldn’t stop thinking about his session even after I had filed. So I wanted to circle back to them here and explain what I found so amazing.

Silicon Valley executives are often packaged in so many layers of spin and carefully crafted images, that when someone stands up and speaks from the heart, with no filters, it can be downright startling. Like a sudden gust of wind that catches you off guard and almost knocks you off your feet.

That was the feeling I got as I listened to Adelson’s remarkable exploration of his own failings. While many folks in the room were understandably anxious to hear about the failures of his business ventures, I was captivated by his unvarnished discussion of his personal failings, as a father, as a husband, and as an entrepreneur. He spoke with great authenticity and honesty about his ongoing fight to strike a healthier balance between his intense drive as an entrepreneur and the toll it takes on his family and personal life.

Adelson isn’t exactly a household name, though in Web 2.0 circles he’s somewhat of a giant. Here’s some quick background on him. In 1998, Adelson started Equinix, an Internet infrastructure company that went public after Adelson stepped aside at the suggestion of investors to let another more “professional” CEO step in and lead the IPO. Adelson eventually lost control and was pushed out of the company, to his enduring regret. That experience was fresh in his mind he was contacted for advice by another entrepreneur, Kevin Rose, who wanted to discuss his idea that became Digg.

Adelson had left Silicon Valley and moved to New York after he left Equinix to get away from the craziness and lingering bad feelings. But ensuing conversations with Rose got him so pumped about Digg, he wife told him he had a “wild” look in his eye. Reluctantly, he found himself agreeing to become CEO of Digg. And he took the role while commuting from New York.

And this is where the personal confessional begins. Even though he had vowed to steer clear of another start-up, he found himself too obsessed with the idea of Digg to say no.

“Next thing you know, I woke up in the back of the alley with a bump on my head five years later,” Adelson said. “And I loved every minute of it.”

Asked about regrets, Adelson said he doesn’t second guess the decision to turn down the two serious offers Digg received. Instead, he again circled back to the personal toll.

“Looking back on the personal, there are moments in time when I wish things were different,” Adelson said.

When he started Equinix, his first child had been born just two months earlier. He rationalized his decision at the time by thinking, hey, it’s the dot-com boom, and I want to take my shot, and if it fails, at least I can say I tried.

“But I don’t think I realized at the time, even if you go home at 6 o’clock, which I rarely did, you don’t realize how much you take home,” Adelson said. “In your head, you’re at work. Even when you’re at home, or rocking your baby to sleep, you’re there at work.

“I wish I had the discipline to shut it off,” he continued. “This is one of the reasons I left Digg. I think I have a problem there.”

Once Adelson is working on a start-up, he find he “puts the blinders up. And to some extent, you can’t stop yourself. It’s a compulsion.”

The reasons he left Digg back in April, of course, were more than just personal. He acknowledged there were disagreements over the direction of the company. But even after he left, he found he hadn’t really left.

“It took me four months after I left Digg for the process to slow down in my head,” Adelson said. “I still wake up in the morning and I’m still working there.”

“I love the emotional context,” he explained. “Everything about Digg and Revision3 (an online video company where he is chair) is about changing something bigger than me. And I get very involved.”

Adelson knows he’s not alone in his start-up compulsion. And to illustrate his point, he asked the room full of 450 entrepreneurs how many of them reached for their smartphone the moment they opened their eyes in the morning. About half raised their hands.

“That’s probably not okay,” he said. “Look into my eyes. That’s. Not. Okay.”

Last year, Adelson and his family moved to back to Silicon Valley even though he didn’t expect to stay at Digg much longer. He was starting to advise more start-ups here and he thought that maybe being closer to them would help him achieve a better balance. He said he’s trying hard to stick to his decision to not jump back into a start-up. He said he’s struggling because he’s hearing about so many amazing opportunities.

“Can  you stay on the sidelines for six months?” Brooks asked.

“Ask me that again in six months,” Adelson said. “It’s been very difficult.”

Brooks asked Adelson what he tells other prospective entrepreneurs about how to weigh the personal costs of doing a start-up against the thrill of being in the game.

“I think that it really just depends on you.” Adelson said. “It’s an emotional decision. Is it interesting to you? What it really comes down to is: Do you enjoy your life every day when you wake up? Do you grab that Blackberry first thing in the morning because you really care about this idea and the people you’re working with? Or do you grab it because you have to?”

Here is VentureBeat’s video of Adelson’s talk:

Share/Save/Bookmark

Leave a comment

“Makers” by Cory Doctorow paints uncertain future(0)

MakersMakers by Cory Doctorow

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

What’s not to like about a book where the main character is a business columnist at the San Jose Mercury News? But Doctorow’s glimpse at the near future makes it difficult to love. The book hits a bunch of themes that would be familiar to anyone who follows Doctorow’s writing: The nature of closed vs. open systems of innovation; the wonder of making stuff and hacking.

But having just finished the book, it’s hard to say how Doctorow wants us to feel about the kind of future these things are creating.  I would assume him to be a champion of open source, but the characters who fall into that camp don’t necessarily get happy endings. And in fact, they help generate a bubble that proves economically devastating not once, but twice. One of them becomes hooked on a future weight-loss program that eliminates almost all overweight people, but eventually turns out to cause horrific health problems. Technology, in this book, causes problems sometimes worse than the ones it solves.

The characters celebrate the world they live in, where the unemployed have built shantytowns from scratch as an alternative to developer driven housing models. But as a model of people making for themselves, well, these shantytowns don’t sound all that wonderful.

In the end, the message of the book is ambiguous. I’m not sure how Doctorow wants me to feel about this world, as intriguing as it is. It seems definitely more dystopian than utopian. And yet, at times he seems to be celebrating it, certainly not condeming it, and certainly never glamorizing it.

That may well be the intention, to leave us feeling ambivalent about where the future it taking us. Makers certainly offers no easy or obvious lessons about these questions. But the questions it raises made it a compelling read.

View all my reviews

Share/Save/Bookmark

Leave a comment

So long, Reel Video(0)

img00352

Upon returning from vacation this week, I saw that Reel Video in Berkeley had indeed closed. I had written about its problems before leaving. Founder Stuart Skorman was trying to pull together some investors to buy it back from the corporation, but couldn’t get a group together in time.

Sorry to see it go, but thanks for many years of happy viewings and good memories.

img003531

img00358

Share/Save/Bookmark

Leave a comment

Peeking into the future of news at MIT this week(0)

Starting today, I’ll be at MIT attending the Future of News and Civic Media conference sponsored by the Knight Foundation. You can follow tweets from the conference at #fncm.

The conference brings together past winners of the foundations’ News Challenge program (of which I was one) along with some other folks working at the edge of new journalism forms. The News Challenge program funds innovative ideas to build new news tools. I’ll be posting some summary thoughts from the sessions over the next few days. But to start things off, the foundation is announcing the 2010 winners of the News Challenge program.

Each of the grantees provides a little glimpse at how people from a wide spectrum of backgrounds looks at the future of news: video games for news; local wikis; community video editing tools; live news maps; community funded journalism. I wanted to highlight a two from the Bay Area:

Read the rest of this entry »

Share/Save/Bookmark

Leave a comment

Can founder save Berkeley’s Reel Video store? Should he?(0)

lThat Reel Video has become a treasured community institution in Berkeley is an accident of timing and strategy.

Beloved by local cinephiles and neighborhood residents alike, the 8,000-square foot video store is actually a relic of the dot-com bubble that developed a devoted following among people who love to browse its extensive collection of titles that range from the biggest hits to the most obscure cult films. While I’m well aware that the trend of renting DVDs online is undermining the local video store, I was still surprised to learn a couple weeks ago that Reel was on the verge of being closed. There is such passion around the store still, I figured it might be the exception.

In fact, Reel is still profitable, but it’s caught on the wrong side of a corporate bankruptcy. Back in February, Movie Gallery, which owns the Hollywood Video franchise of rental stores, filed for bankruptcy and said it planned to close and liquidate most of its stores. Most folks, including me, didn’t realize that Movie Gallery owned the Reel Video store. Indeed, word that the store is in peril is only just trickling out to the store’s staff and the community.

But behind the scenes, Reel’s founder Stuart Skorman has been leading efforts to save the store. He wants to preserve what has become an unlikely cultural touchstone while also exploring how such a place might be transformed to remain socially and economically relevant as its old business model inevitably whithers away.

Beyond the sentimentality, this effort raises two interesting questions. Can Reel be saved? And even if it can, should it be saved? Whatever fixes can be made in the short term, the trendline in clear. Renting videos from stores is a dying habit. Wouldn’t Skorman just be postponing the inevitable?

Of course, Skorman thinks not. He’s convinced that if he saves the store now, it will buy him some time to reinvent the store’s role in the video marketplace and the community.

“The reason I’m involved is community,” Skorman said. “It’s an important part of a community, and it’s worth saving therefore. It’s so sad if it goes away for so many people. But long term, maybe something more can be made of it.”

Am I killing Reel?

I live in North Oakland, and the change in my own video renting habits mirror the larger forces bearing down on Reel. When I first moved here back in January 2001, everyone made a point to tell us about Reel. It was the place to rent a video in North Oakland and South Berkeley. Forget the ample number of Blockbusters and Hollywood Video stores nearby.

My family became Reel regulars. I still have my Reel video rental card on my keychain. But my loyalty changed after subscribing to Netflix. I love Netflix, and became an evangelist to all my friends. Then we expanded to downloading videos from iTunes, streaming them online, and of course watching OnDemand from Comcast.

This trend has accelerated the past couple of years. According to NPD, a consumer research services based in Chicago, the percentage of individual DVDs rented from a store has dropped from 64 percent in 2007 to 37 percent the first quarter of 2010. People are moving to a subscription model, from both stores and online., with this category now accounting for 37 percent of rentals. It’s hard to count pure online rentals because places like Blockbluster offer hybrid models, one price for online and store subscriptions.

And yet, I still make the occassional trip to Reel. Sometimes the kids just need something right now. Or the set of videos we have on tap from Netflix are not right. A trip to Reel can still sometimes be faster — and cheaper — than using Comcast’s horribly designed OnDemand menus. And sometimes, I just plain like the feel of being in a place surrounded by walls of DVDs.

So I was stunned while attending a neighborhood barbecue recently when the chatter turned to the impending closing of Reel.

“No!” I said. “How have I not heard about this?”

It turns out, I wasn’t the only one in the dark.

The accidental success

Skorman came to the Bay Area with a background in video rental stores. He’d started a small, local chain of them in Vermont, which he sold and moved West.

When he discovered the Internet, he started building a site to sell and rent movies. Reel.com was launched. But here’s the forgotten twist:

Skorman said when the site launched in 1996, he figured no one would make money on the Internet. Instead, he thought the site would be a marketing vehicle for bricks-and-mortar stores. He would build a new chain of retail stores in tandem with the Web site.

He put the first one in South Berkeley. It was a town he figured he knew well because of its similarities to Burlington, Vt., where he’d operated another store. Super Liberal college towns both. And he found the perfect spot in South Berkeley. There was a spot along Shattuck Avenue where neighbors were fighting the decision to build a Hollywood Video because they didn’t want a chain store. Skorman offered to take the property off Hollywood Video’s hands and build a truly local video story, making him a neighborhood hero.

The store he built there was tailor made for Berkeley. It stocked more than 25,000 titles, about three times as much as the average chain store. And they were organized along all sorts of categories like “Action” to sections devoted to one director or actor. It catered to the obsessive fan. And of course, it had loads of cult movies you couldn’t find anywhere else.

Of course, just as the store got running, dot-com mania took over. Investors told Skorman to stop building stores and focus on the Web site. Smart move. Two years later, he sold Reel.com to Hollywood Video for $100 million in an all-stock deal. By the way, it wasn’t so good for Hollywood, which just two years later shut down the site and fired the whole staff.

At the time, the sale enraged local residents who had fought the Hollywood Video store. They saw Skorman as a traitor. But Skorman says he had a handshake agreement with Hollywood’s CEO that the Reel store wouldn’t be touched. True or not, the store has been allowed to operate as it was intended without being forced to endure a chain-style makeover. That remained true even after Hollywood was later acquired by Movie Gallery.

By operating as the anti-chain store within a chain store, Reel has remained profitable. A lesson that appeared to go unlearned as the larger chain sunk into the red, bankruptcy, and now liquidation.

I talked recently with Richard Phillips, a shift leader at Reel, who has worked there for five years. We talked about what males Reel special and different. He agreed about some of the big things, like the selection and the various ways movies are categories. That has attracted customers like Pixar Studios, which has a special account at Reel. When the studio is considering using a vocal talent for one of its productions, it likes to come into the store and rent all of that person’s movies, Phillips said.

Phillips also noted that many of the 14 staffers at Reel have worked there for a long time, and that they love it. That enjoyment shows up in little ways, like the oddball choices for videos that play in the store. Or their surprising knowledge of movies and ability to talk to customers about the subject endlessly.

“We all really love movies,” he said. “It’s a differnet kind of store than any kind of chain store you go to.”

And they’ve stuck around despite all the financial uncertainty. But Phillips said even the staff was caught off guard by news of the store’s closing. Back when Movie Gallery filed for bankruptcy in February, the thought was that only some stores would be liquidated. But in early May, the staff learned that Reel was scheduled to be shut down. That news is just now trickling out to the community.

I called the press hotline for Movie Gallery, by the way. It contains a pleasant message saying to read the legal documents on the company’s Web site about the bankruptcy. And if no one calls back, just write that officials couldn’t be reached for comment.

Officials couldn’t be reached for comment.

Skorman to the rescue?

The news of Reel’s dilemma reached Skorman a few weeks ago. Skorman was still nursing his wounds from the closing last year of Elephant Pharmacy, a chain of local pharmacies he’d started in the Bay Area to try an provide an alternative setting to take on the big pharmacy chains.

Skorman started trying to figure out scnenarios to raise the money to buy Rell back from Hollywood/Movie Gallery. So far, no luck. At one point, he thought he had investors, but the deal fell apart. So he decided to make his efforts public in the hope of attracting other interested parties.

Beyond the sentimental reasons, Skorman thinks there’s a real opportunity to take what exists and reinvent it, rather than just shut it down and sell the parts.

Skorman’s plan in the short term is to expand the store’s business to include trading DVD and selling used DVDs. Swapping and used DVDs are growing businesses, and he said Reel would be in a good position to get into this game because of its reputation as a place for cinema lovers and its strong customer base.

Longer term is less clear, but Skorman figures this shift to a new business model could buy him some time to figure that out. Could it evolve to include educational functions about movie history? Could it be a gathering place for community members to meet and discuss movies? Who knows? But Skorman thinks it’s worth it to try.

None of this sounds quixotic to me. For all the wonders of the Internet, we still have a fundamental need and desire to connect and shop in the real world. That habit has persisted much more strongly than many people assumed a decade ago when digital utopians mocked stores that clung to their bricks and mortar operations as dinosaurs.

And even today, when digital streaming is finally becoming a reasonable option thanks to faster broadband connections, we are seeing an interesting trend that provides a counterpoint to the growth of Netflix’s online rental and streaming of movies. Upstart Redbox has also enjoyed explosive growth by rolling out thousands of signature red kiosks at grocery and convenience stores, a reminder that many other people still prefer renting a physical DVD to watch their movies. Indeed, according to NPD, the kiosk trend is proving to be even more disruptive than the Internet. The percentage of DVDs being rented from kiosks has risen from 3 percent in 2007 to 27 percent during the first three months of 2010.

The other reason some of this seems doable is the price tag. Skorman said he needs to raise about $250,000 to buy the store, invest in some long overdue upgrades to its systems, and start the used DVD business. That seems like a relatively small risk.

Looming over all of this is the question of time. Neither Skorman nor the store employees have been able to learn when the store is scheduled to be closed. It could be tomorrow. It could be several weeks.

I’ve got my fingers crossed for him. But the community’s love for the store is no longer enough. What happens to Reel over the next couple of weeks will tell us just how far  residents of this fiercely independent town are willing to go to prove they really want to champion local ownership over big chains.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Leave a comment

Google’s enhanced local ads put heat on Yelp(7)

We learned in late December that Yelp turned down an acquisition offer from Google reported to be worth $500 million. Yelp then raised $25 million from Elevation Partners, with another $75 million possibly coming down the road.

It may need that money to ward off Google, which is ramping up its local advertising offerings. The new service places Yelp directly in Google’s scope. And I wonder if it won’t lead Yelp to regret not selling when they had the chance.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share/Save/Bookmark

Leave a comment

Apple: The new/old Pirates of Silicon Valley?(6)

1999_pirates_of_silicon_valley_stevevsbill

Noah Wyle as Steve Jobs and Anthony Michael Hall as Bill Gates

A few months back, I noticed a bunch of folks tweeting about the 1999 made-for-TV-movie “Pirates of Silicon Valley.” I remember hearing about the movie just as I was moving to Silicon Valley that year, but never got around to watching it. I had heard mixed things about the movie, and its accuracy, but the tweets seemed pretty positive, so I decided to rent it and see for myself.

It exceeded my tremendously low expectations. Though as far as factual accuracy, it’s hard to say where truth ends and creative license takes over. The movie hits some of the high points of the emerging battle between Microsoft and Apple as told through the stories of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. And narrated by their wingmen: Steve Wozniak and Steve Ballmer.

There’s an amusing scene, about 20 minutes in when Wozniak and Jobs walk out of the famed Homebrew Club in 1976, having triumphantly demonstrated a version of their personal computer:

Jobs: “IBM is going to be loading in their pants!”

Wozniak: “Steve, I don’t think IBM even knows who we are.”

Jobs: “That’s okay. Because they’re the enemy.”

And later, in a conversation with John Sculley:

Sculley: ”Steve, I’m worried. About what’s happening. All the “them versus us” stuff. Macintosh versus Apple II.”

Jobs: “You don’t understand, John. People need a cause.”

Creative license aside, back in the late 1970s, and the early 1980s, Jobs had enormous power and the ability to impose his will. If you wanted to play with Apple, you did things Jobs’ way. And he wasn’t afraid to define his enemies and go after them (IBM, Microsoft). That is, until he was ousted in 1985 and Apple began its long, slow decline. And even after Jobs’ return in 1996, Apple was just happy to still be around, even striking a deal with Microsoft to invest to keep it going.

Apple’s clout has grown steadily over the past decade, thanks to the success of the iPod and the iPhone. With the iPad announcement a week behind us, it seems the the gadget itself may turn out to be less interesting than some of the things it tells us about the state of Steve Jobs and Apple. With the iPad, it appears that Jobs is confident that he’s once again in a position to dictate terms and define the opposition in a way he hasn’t been able to since the early days depicted in Pirates of Silicon Valley.

You could feel this renewed swagger when Apple announced it recent earnings. Jobs said in a press release:

“If you annualize our quarterly revenue, it’s surprising that Apple is now a $50+ billion company,” Jobs said. “The new products we are planning to release this year are very strong, starting this week with a major new product that we’re really excited about.”

That was a not-so-subtle reminder of Apple’s financial strength. Consider that Apple has closed the gap in terms of market capitalization with Microsoft. This is from Silicon Valley Insider last November:

“In May 2000, Apple’s market capitalization was $17 billion. Today it’s $182 billion. Meanwhile, Microsoft was around $356 billion in May 2000. Today it’s around $261 billion.”

By the way, Google’s market cap is $171.73 billion as of mid-day Wednesday.

Since the release of the iPad and iTunes, Apple has had the music industry under its thumb. And with the iPhone, Apple was able to change the balance of power between device makers and phone companies. But with the iPad, let’s look at the new ways Jobs is flexing those growing muscles:

Read the rest of this entry »

Share/Save/Bookmark

Leave a comment

How my Wii column drove gamers crazy(91)

tweet

Boy, is that an understatement.

I have been learning that lesson all week since we published my story Monday on  “Why we didn’t get a Wii for Christmas.” The story, which I figured was a pretty innocent tale of my family’s decision, has sent some members of the gaming community off the deep end. Read the rest of this entry »

Share/Save/Bookmark

Leave a comment