Archive for March, 2005
A couple of thoughts on Browster
Update: Got a very helpful comment from Jason describing the history of these sorts of tools. Definitely helps to offer a greater context (beyond just the user experience).
Where do I start? A few weeks ago I did a highlight piece on some of the technologies showcased at DEMO@15 held this past February in Scottsdale, AZ. In that piece I mentioned Browster – a new San Francisco start-up – amongst a wide variety of other companies that participated in the event. What does Browster do? In their words:
BrowsterTM simplifies and accelerates the process of browsing through
search results and Websites, such as Google and Yahoo! Search, saving time and
increasing convenience for any Internet user. Browster’s patent-pending
technology works with Internet Explorer and Firefox browsers. It provides a
unique Web page preview window, which instantly displays a page by simply
mousing over the link. Browster scans a result list and pre-fetches the Web
pages so they are immediately available for viewing.
Since then, I was asked to provide some insights on them, which (I gotta admit) I wasn’t completely prepared to do. Honestly, I didn’t pay much attention to Browster during the DEMO@15 event because:
- the beta currently only works with IE (and I have become an evangelist for Firefox)
- the website doesn’t provide enough of a preview for me to fully "get" what the tool does (I’m thick sometimes and like to be shown – picture, demo, etc.)
- this review by Jason Calacanis made me wary of the whole thing…which was really unfair…but sometimes happens when you are busy and not paying attention and then someone screams at the top of their lungs, "WATCH THE HELL OUT!"
So, I decided to try it out tonight (although I was urged to wait until next week as that is when the next beta release is due) and made the following observations:
- First impression? As a tool it’s kinda cool and seems to work pretty well too. I did a couple of Google searches and the links seemed to get cached fairly quickly (and supposedly even faster with the next beta release). Does it enhance my browsing experience? Certainly.
- I don’t like the fact that I can’t actually move the Browster window.
The tool has a setting where you can "lock" the Browster window, but it
just sits there on your desktop without a handle to grab a hold of. You
can move the original browser window through…which just makes things a little visually confusing. - I’m not a big fan of the link bar which will presumably be the location for search related ads. In fact, I will most likely uninstall this tool for that very reason. Although it does provide a slightly enhanced experience while browsing, it is not enough to counter-act the annoyance of the ads.
Final impression: it’s a nifty tool and, if you don’t mind the exposure to more ads, would be worth the time to evaluate yourself…especially since it’s free. Will it revolutionize the way we sift through search results? I hardly think so…but with a couple of tweaks to their business model, it sure might disrupt things.
(By the way, I’ll give it a quick look-see next week and report if they have made any significant changes.)
Taubman Sucks!
After reading Seth’s blog yesterday I had to take a look at Hank Mishkoff’s site – Taubman Sucks!
And then I did the unthinkable (especially after seeing the site): I
read the entire thing in a single sitting…and it’s huge…but
engrossing. What’s the moral of his story? Treat people with decency
and, not only is it the right thing to do, it could save you hundreds
of thousands of dollars. Side benefits of reading through the full
version? You get a detailed, step-by-step guide to defending yourself
in a trademark infrindgement case..
A Whole New Mind Part 2
I was reminded about something very important today: When you comment on a book, make sure that you’ve read it and not just the articles about it. If you don’t, you might get a nice email (like I did today) from the author. Yep, Dan Pink took the time to send me a quick note today indicating that he agreed with the comments I made about A Whole New Mind. In specific, that the general concept has wide application outside of the US. As Dan urged, "indeed, check out the book. You’ll see lots of examples from europe and asia. And, happily, we’ve already sold rights to the book in australia/new zealand, the u.k., taiwan, korea, japan, france, and brazil."
Point taken…it’s now on my "to buy/to read" list.
Review of Yahoo! 360
Charlene Li’s blog offers a first look at Yahoo! 360. On the whole an interesting review, but I was taken by the following comment:
"Central to the whole service is the concept that you want to communicate and connect with the people that you already know, rather than try to meet new people."
Aren’t they missing something? What about the connections you want to build? Sure, I’m all for keeping in touch with the people I know…but I want to expand that list as well.
As the beta user-group starts on March 29th, we’ll see how on or off target that central concept is.
A Whole New Mind
I wrote about Dan Pink a month ago, but here is a pretty decent review of his book, A Whole New Mind. Link: 800-CEO-READ Blog: BOOK REVIEW: A Whole New Mind.
I’ll say it again: I agree with Dan’s basic premise, but am skeptical in the way it is only applied to the US. Taking it to it’s natural conclusion implies a much wider effort for companies worldwide to stay competitve.
The Long Tail: Apples and Oranges
Take a look at Chris’ comments here: Link: The Long Tail: 80/20…cracked!. Looks like he got it all figured out with the help of Jacob Neilsen. The observation that cracked it? In Jacob’s words, "when you talk about an x/y rule, x is a percentage of the consequences
(e.g., sales) and y is a percentage of the causes (e.g., number of
products). Thus, x and y are percentages of different things and do not need to add up to 100%."
Ah yes…defined your variables and keep them consistent. Sometimes we get all caught up in the complexity of the issue that we miss the basics. Good catch!
From Idea to Investors
What an exciting day! Don’t know if it’s the 20 oz. of dark roast coffee or the natural buzz that comes from discussing the potential of an idea…but I’m all hopped up. What about? I met with a group of entrepreneurs who presented their idea for a very interesting sort of start-up. Although I’m obliged not to discuss the details, it’s got disruptive innovation written all over it.
So if I’m not going into the details, why write? Because I want to offer some advise to the guys I met with, and this session from ETech speaks directly to it. Although Marc Hedlund is talking about the differences in language/concerns between geeks and VC’s, I think the basic message is appropriate for a wider audience.
What does he say? When presenting your idea to a VC, be sure you are clear on the basics:
1) WHAT IS YOUR VISION?
- What is your big vision?
- What problem are you solving and for whom?
- Where do you want to be in the future?
2) WHAT IS YOUR MARKET OPPORTUNITY AND HOW BIG IS IT?
- How big is the market opportunity you are pursuing and how fast is it growing?
- How established (or nascent) is the market?
- Do you have a credible claim on being one of the top two or three players in the market?
3) DESCRIBE YOUR PRODUCT/SERVICE
- What is your product/service?
- How does it solve your customer’s problem?
- What is unique about your product/service?
The basics are always a good place to start.
The Long Tail, Pareto and validity
Seth’s series of blogs (1,2) got me thinking about the Long Tail again, so I decided to re-read Chris Anderson’s manifesto – ChangeThis :: The Long Tail. I am still entralled because as a metaphor, the Long Tail goes a long way to describe the who, what and how of changing, once physically constrained, markets. Which is why I was curious to see Chris spending so much time on getting Pareto’s principle right (the 80/20 rule). I have always believed the strength of 80/20 was not in it’s accuracy, but in its ability to illustrate/communicate trends and patterns…the metaphor. It seems to me that his argument is valid as it is.
More on Buckingham
Link: Slacker Manager: More reading fodder.
This is an update to SlackerManager’s (and my) comments on Marcus Buckingham’s book, The One Thing You Need To Know… Check out "The Clear Leader" in the March 2005 issue of FastCompany. In it, Marcus spends a couple of pages explaining the core concepts of the book. Gotta love the try before you buy plan!
Designing for balance
I had a friend and former colleague (from Herman Miller, Inc.) send me this article today from the April issue of Fast Company . In it Roger Martin, Dean of the Rotman School of Business in Toronto, makes the basic argument that to be competitive in today’s market companies need to think more like design shops. From the article:
Design’s powerful impact on business strategy will require a whole new way of thinking. Martin asserts that traditional companies "reward two types of logic: inductive (proving that something actually operates) and deductive (proving that something must be)." Designers combine inductive and deductive reasoning to create a fresh approach — abductive thinking — which Martin defines as "suggesting that something may be and reaching out to explore it." Instead of acting on what’s certain, designers bet on what’s probable. Companies such as Apple act like design shops by saying, "If everything must be proven, we’ll never make the likes of an iPod."
"Validity, on the other hand, seeks to produce outcomes that meet the desired objective, even if the system employed can’t produce a consistent, predictable outcome."
"A perfectly reliable system is one that produces an identical output each time if the same inputs are introduced to the system repeatedly."
"A perfectly valid system is one that produces a result that is shown, through the passage of time, to have been correct."
So, what’s the hubbub?
I think this is some great basic insight about creating balance within organizations …something business leaders must pay attention to. Most great ideas or business models start off heavily valuing validity because it aims to make predictions about the future. Once the predicted future begins to prove itself (i.e. the new business model or technology becomes successful) the organization naturally slides to valuing the repeatability of a reliable system (think "continual improvement" and "lean" techniques). Repeatability is good…until it becomes more valued than validity. When metrics overwhelm the vision of the business, it tends to get competitively stuck and mired in minutia/bureaucracy instead of fixed on its goals. The solution? Strong leaders who trust the insights of their employees.
Again, as Martin states in the HBR, "Try as they might, organizations cannot predict the future. Instead of wasting their efforts, they should focus more on employing the vision, judgment and insight of their human capital." Ahhh…a breath of fresh air.
