Aug 23

A source of electricity?

A sampling of
green-tech news with quick commentary:

Getting a (firm) grip on renewables–Rocky Mountain Institute
RMI advocates a portfolio approach to renewables where utilities use solar and wind together, combined with storage.
EU eyes ’supergrid’ to harness Saharan sun–EurActiv.com
The basic idea: build massive solar power plants in North Africa and construct transmission lines to supply Europe.
Coal juice: High energy prices prompt first U.S. coal-to-liquids plant–WSJ.com
America’s first coal-to-liquid plant will use a technology that dates back to the 1920s. Environmentalists, by the way, hate this approach.
Why cleantech investors love and back Obama–Earth2Tech

The numbers don’t lie: Barack Obama has much more support in aggregate among clean tech VCs than John McCain.
Postal Service wants to green 90 percent of fleet–Environmental Leader
Fleets are one of the best ways to test out new fuels and
car technologies.

CleanTech Biofuels to begin producing renewable electricity–press release
Tests show that municipal solid waste has 75 percent of the energy of coal. The company intends to use both coal and garbage to make electricity.
French company to buy Xantrex Technology for about $500 million–The Canadian Press
Xantrex makes inverters for renewable energy systems, like solar panels or wind turbines. The buyer is energy management firm Schneider.

Aug 23

But user behavior, monitored in anonymous form by Web servers and Web browser plug-ins, can be better, the authors argue.

“It’s important to keep in mind that PageRank is just one of more than 200 signals we use to determine the ranking of a Web site,” the company said in a statement. “Search remains at the core of everything Google does, and we are always working to improve it.”

The top players are a moving target, though. Yahoo is hoping to improve search with three efforts: BOSS (build your own search service), which lets others employ Yahoo search results along with its search ads; SearchMonkey, which lets content publishers build elaborate mini-Web pages into search results; and Glue Pages, which present a smorgasbord of related content alongside search results.

There’s no denying PageRank is useful, though, and such algorithms could be added into a larger formula for determining which sites come out on top of search results.

The researchers gathered their data from “an extremely large group of users under legal agreements with them,” according to the paper.

“The more visits of the page made by the users and the longer time periods spent by the users on the page, the more likely the page is important. We can leverage hundreds of millions of users’ implicit voting on page importance,” the researchers said in BrowseRank: Letting Web Users Vote for Page Importance, a paper from the SIGIR (Special Interest Group on Information Retrieval) conference this week in Singapore. Authors are Bin Gao, Tie-Yan Liu, and Hang Li from Microsoft Research Asia and Ying Zhang of Nankai University, Zhiming Ma of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and Shuyuan He of Peking University.

PageRank shortcomings
The Microsoft researchers argue that PageRank has a number of problems. For one thing, people can game the system by building bogus Web sites called link farms. Those sites feature hyperlinks point to a Web page whose importance a person wants to inflate so it appears higher in search results. Another PageRank issue is that the indexing process doesn’t take into account the time a user spends on a particular site.

When accused of being dominant, Google representatives often argue the company could lose its search dominance if somebody else builds a better mousetrap and Internet users divert their path to that other door door. “If Microsoft or Yahoo are successful in providing similar or better web search results or more relevant advertisements, or in leveraging their platforms or products to make their Web search or advertising services easier to access, we could experience a significant decline in user traffic or the size of the Google (ad) Network,” it said in its most recent quarterly report.

A big part of Google’s rise to search engine leadership was an algorithm called PageRank that assesses a specific page’s importance by how many other Web pages link to it and by the importance of those linking pages. Microsoft researchers and academic collaborators, though, detailed an idea this week it calls BrowseRank that seeks to bring more of a human touch to that assessment.

Though a distant third place to Google, Microsoft thinks it can teach its rival a thing or two about searching the Internet.

But Microsoft lags leader Google and No. 2 Yahoo in search. It’s trying hard to catch up, for example with unsuccessful proposals to acquire Yahoo or its search business that would cost the company billions of dollars. And Microsoft just bought search start-up Powerset.

Bringing research to fruition
It can be a long time before research comes to fruition, but funding a group of researchers can be much less expensive than acquiring other companies. No doubt Microsoft, especially after years of effort and its thwarted overtures to Yahoo, would like to see its in-house search efforts bring Google to its knees.

Google isn’t putting all its eggs in the PageRank basket, though.

“My group at Google has at its disposal many thousands of machines, with storage measured in petabytes,” Udi Manber, head of Google’s search quality, said of Google’s search research infrastructure in a June talk. And, he added, engineers are empowered to try their results, with meetings once or twice a week to see how well they worked: “There is no separation of research and development. Everyone does both.”

(Credit:
Microsoft ResearchA Asia)

“Experimental results show that BrowseRank can achieve better performance than existing methods, including PageRank…in important page finding, spam page fighting, and relevance ranking.

And Google invests heavily, too. Its biggest research team is devoted to search, and the company updated its search formula more than 100 times in the second quarter. And researchers have huge infrastructure at their disposal to try new ideas.

Microsoft likes the results BrowseRank, which assigning Web page priority based on how people actually use the site.

“It is also possible to combine link graph and user behavior data to compute page importance,” the researchers said. “We will not discuss more about this possibility in this paper, and simply leave it as future work.”

Essentially, the researchers tested out a system that replaces PageRanks’ link graph–a mathematical model of the hyperlinked connections of the Internet–with what they call a user browsing graph that ranks Web pages by people’s behavior.

Search is of tremendous importance to the Internet for many reasons. For one thing, search engines are highly influential middlemen that steer users to Web sites they may not be able to find on their own. For another, queries typed into search engines can be powerful–and in Google’s case highly profitable–indications of what type of advertisement to place next to the search results.

Aug 23

Sony’s gaming division is quickly becoming a drain on its financial stability and shareholder confidence, while Microsoft is chugging along at a pretty good clip even though it has little influence in Asia. And although neither company can beat Nintendo alone, don’t you think it’s entirely possible that Microsoft and Sony could become a powerhouse in the industry if the former acquires the latter, thus making it a valuable idea?

Right now, Microsoft is a major force in the US and Europe, but it’s practically nonexistent in Asia. On the other hand, Japan has always been a Playstation 3 stronghold and even now, it far outpaces the Xbox 360 on almost every measure of performance.

It may sound radical, but a consolidated video game industry would be best for two of the big three. And now, we wait to see if they agree.

Lest we forget, the only thing stopping Microsoft from offering Blu-ray now is that Sony is behind it and it doesn’t want to pay off its competitors. But by acquiring the games division, it’s eliminating that competitor and offering Blu-ray seems like an even smarter move.

Even though Sony enjoyed a small profit of about $51 million from its game division last quarter, it’s still far behind previous generations and is quickly becoming a thorn in the company’s side. Earlier this year, Sony announced that its games division posted a $276 million loss and over the course of its availability, things have been even worse.

But I don’t think that’s a problem here at all. Microsoft would be more than happy to bring Blu-ray to its platform as long as people want to use it, and Sony would make out in the long-run anyway: both the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 would undoubtedly offer Blu-ray drives, thus increasing its penetration rate.

Check out Don’s Digital Home podcast, Twitter feed, and FriendFeed!

Now is the prime moment for both of these companies to come together, strike a deal, and see Microsoft acquire Sony’s games division. Microsoft is not only capable of writing a check for the division, it’s fully aware that by acquiring Sony’s third-party agreements, Blu-ray capability, and its worldwide presence, it can become an incredibly powerful force in the video game industry and solidify itself as a feared player going forward.

From Sony’s side, the deal is a no-brainer. Over the last few years, the company has presided over the worst degradation in value the games division has ever seen and it’s limping along trying desperately to turn things around. And now that its focus is squarely planted on Blu-ray above all else, why wouldn’t it take the hefty price Microsoft would be willing to pay, right its wrongs, and make Blu-ray available on two gaming platforms?

And why wouldn’t it be? By acquiring Sony’s games division, Microsoft effectively eliminates the major competitor in its space and can increase its presence overseas — a major sticking point for the company.

Surely some are thinking that the deal breaker here is Blu-ray. Sony relies on the Playstation 3 more because of its Blu-ray capability right now than anything else. The company is so inexorably tied to Blu-ray that if the Playstation 3 fails, the high-def format will as well.

The gaming division is still an important component in Sony’s broad strategy, but it’s simply not as important as it once was. With huge losses that may or may not turn to profits, Sony is in an awkward position. Should it simply wait and see what happens or should it go to Microsoft now and see if the company is interested?

Realizing that, why wouldn’t Microsoft acquire Sony’s gaming division and consolidate its power and influence in the gaming space? I know, it may sound radical and at first glance you would think that Sony would never agree to such a deal, but keep an open mind for a minute and hear me out.

But by acquiring Sony’s games division, all those troubles are behind Microsoft. After the ink dries, it’ll have a full-fledged customer base in Asia and together with its US and Europe customers, it can expand its Xbox Live platform to more people than ever before and truly become a fearful competitor to Nintendo.

Sony has blamed its gaming division’s financial problems on high manufacturing costs and slow sales, but it’s probably easier to blame it on poor management. Either way, it’s not in a position to acquire a small developer, let alone Microsoft’s gaming division, and to be honest, I’m not so sure Sony would mind doing just that.

But when we objectively consider the state of the industry, it becomes blatantly clear that Sony and Microsoft simply don’t have what it takes right now to compete and more consumers are more excited about Nintendo’s platform than anything Sony or Microsoft can dole out.

Undoubtedly some are wondering why I think Microsoft should acquire Sony and not the other way around. Well, Microsoft is the company with more money in the bank than Sony ever dreamed of having. On top of that, Sony is in no position to acquire a gaming division from a company that’s enjoying record profits with its online platform and has finally turned things around after years of losing money.

Why Sony?

As I was thinking of something to discuss today, I peered beneath my HDTV and saw my
Wii sitting next to my Playstation 3 and
Xbox 360. And as soon as I looked at all three, it had me thinking: the Wii is a wildly successful platform, but the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 are still limping along in the hope that they’ll compete with Nintendo’s platform at some time in the future.

Aug 23

commentary (Credit:
The 451 Group)

Although the likes of Ringside Networks, Bluenog, and Engine Yard did prove there is more to come in the future, the vast majority of the funding raised in the quarter went to more familiar names, such as Automattic, Greenplum, SugarCRM, and Pentaho.

I’m not sure I share the caution, though I, too, would love to see more open-source deals getting funded. Most venture funds simply aren’t going to overextend themselves in any given investment area. Given that they have already placed their open-source bets, they’re likely to continue to nurture these toward an exit, and then invest in subsequent opportunities once their existing investments pan out.

Great news, no? Well, yes and no. as The 451 Group’s Matthew Aslett goes on to note, the quarter saw far more later-stage deals than early (seed and Series A) deals:

The exception to this “rule” is Benchmark, which seems intent on investing in every open-source venture on the planet. But it is the exception.

Just when you thought venture interest in open source was quieting down, along comes the biggest quarter in open source’s (still young) history: $203.75 million raised, as reported by The 451 Group. This trumped the previous record of $193.6 million from Q4 2006. There’s something about the end of the year that bodes well for open source…

More tellingly, we’re seeing experimentation in novel areas of software. Matthew didn’t mention Acquia and OpenX, both of which recently raised rounds, but they (along with Ringside and the others mentioned) take open source into new territory. This is the key takeaway. Open-source venture investment has proved that classic enterprise software plays make sense for open source, but most areas have been covered.

In fact, so many of the old names raised funding in the first quarter, it’s difficult to see where significant further funding will be raised in the coming months unless a few more start-ups emerge.

The new opportunities are in new markets, where open source is innovating, not following. “Only three” is a glass half-empty way of looking at it. Given the nature of the companies being funded, it’s definitely glass half-full, even for Savio.

Aug 23

A Google representative said the company had no comment on letter. A Yahoo spokeswoman provided this comment: “We believe strongly that this agreement will strengthen Yahoo’s competitive position in online advertising and will help to drive a more robust, higher quality Yahoo marketplace for our advertisers, publishers and users.”

In a letter addressed to U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the lawmakers point out that the agreement is not exclusive and warned that blocking it with a lawsuit as the DOJ is considering could stifle online ad market growth and innovation.

Under the deal signed in June, Google will provide Yahoo with ads that will run on Yahoo’s search site.

“Similar agreements are commonplace in many industries and standard among Internet companies,” the letter says. “In fact, Microsoft had a similar agreement with Yahoo and Google has similar arrangements with tens of thousands of companies.”

A group of Democratic congressional members from California have sent a letter to the U.S. Justice Department urging officials not to block the proposed online advertising agreement reached between Google and Yahoo.

The letter, dated September 26, is signed by 11 people, including Reps. Anna Eshoo, Ellen Tauscher, Zoe Lofgren, and George Miller.

“We believe that robust competition serves the public interest but if the DOJ blocks this agreement we fear that the threat of additional scrutiny may chill future agreements,” the letter says.

Yahoo has stepped up its efforts to defend the deal with a blog post from President Sue Decker following opposition from a newspaper group and news that European anti-competition officials are investigating the deal.

Aug 23

Sunex's 185-degree Superfisheye lens costs $799 for Canon and Nikon SLRs.

Sunex builds lenses for applications such as security and automotive cameras, but now it’s trying to appeal to photographers, too, the company said.

Update 10:07 p.m. PST: I added some further comment from Sunex.

The Superfisheye lens costs $799 for Nikon and Canon SLRs with smaller sensors. It’s got a constant f/5.6 aperture. The price includes software to “dewarp” the peculiar fisheye perspective into the rectilinear view humans are more comfortable with.

At the Photo Marketing Association trade show here, Sunex plans to show off its new Superfisheye lens whose 5.6mm focal length provide a view encompassing a 185-degree span.

LAS VEGAS–A California company called Sunex wants to make it even easier to photograph your toes inadvertently.

Its earlier products give it wide-angle expertise, he added: “Sunex has extensive experience in wide angle lenses for automotive rear-view, visual-communication (360 room views), security and machine-vision applications.”

(Credit:
Sunex)

“This is our first product offered for professional, amateur, and commercial photographers,” said Francois Pelletier, Sunex’s director of sales and marketing. The company started shipping early models two weeks ago, but the official launch is at PMA, he said.

Aug 23

But Radiohead’s manager has also said that the band likely wouldn’t try a similar promotion again. The British super group ended the offer and has begun selling the record through traditional sales channels.

What is so sad about these promotions by Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead is that, other than Reznor, few artists are tinkering with the Internet or looking for an alternative to the traditional business model in the music industry.

Earlier this month, Nine Inch Nails began distributing a digital album, Ghosts I-IV a 36-track instrumental, in a range of ways. The offer included free samples, a $5 digital version and premium packages that came with downloads, discs, and varying merchandise depending on the money one was willing to pay. In a little over a week, Reznor told The Chicago Tribune that he generated 781,917 transactions and earned $1.6 million.

(Credit:
NIN.com)

Nine Inch Nails' Ghosts I-IV has so far earned $1.6 million.

Reznor made the comments during an interview with the Australia Broadcasting Corporation earlier this week.

“I don’t see that as a big revolution [that] they’re kind of getting credit for,” Reznor told the Australia Broadcasting Corporation on Monday. “There’s nothing wrong with that, but I don’t see that as a big revolution [that] they’re kind of getting credit for…to me that feels insincere. It relies upon the fact that it was quote-unquote ‘first,’ and it takes the headlines with it.”

“I think the way [Radiohead] parlayed it into a marketing gimmick has certainly been shrewd,” Reznor said. “But if you look at what they did, it was very much a bait and switch, to get you to pay for a MySpace quality stream as a way to promote a very traditional record sale.”

The In Rainbows promotion was distributed online, without backing from a major record company and allowed fans to pay whatever they thought the digital album was worth. Radiohead was widely praised for breaking from the label system.

Radiohead may have earned more and likely gathered information valuable to other artists who might be considering self-distribution. We don’t know because, unlike Reznor, the band isn’t sharing sales numbers.

We’re talking about rock ‘n’ roll here. It was once rumored to be the domain of rebels and rogues. How come more performers aren’t bucking the status quo?

Radiohead’s groundbreaking promotion for the album In Rainbows was “insincere” and smacked of a “bait and switch,” according to Trent Reznor, leader of the group Nine Inch Nails.

Reznor has a point. There’s no arguing that Radiohead’s music giveaway pioneered new territory, but when it comes to actually plowing ahead with a determined search for a new way to distribute music, Radiohead falls short.

The truth is that Reznor, who at times is volatile–and is always outspoken–is doing more for music fans and fellow musicians than anybody.

Aug 23

So, what's a start-up again?

Hillary Clinton is on to something but she’s not thinking big enough.

On Wednesday, the Democratic presidential nominee wannabe issued another one of those insufferably boring candidate white papers on how she would improve the country as its 43rd president. The main news? Clinton wants to spend $7 billion to promote what she terms an “insourcing” agenda, offering a package of tax incentives and investments to companies that create jobs in America.

I don’t buy the end-of-the-world scenario that another mega-bust is on the horizon. Still, these are turbulent times and start-ups will get knocked around a bit before things calm down. Instead of being forced into ridiculous choices between political camps, they have more issues to attend to. Such as how to survive when times get tough. And they could use friends in high places–that is, assuming the folks in Washington will pay attention.

•  In the first three months of 2008, the number of VC-backed mergers and acquisitions f
ell to an all-time quarterly low for the decade

•  At least 15 new “Innovation and Research Clusters” across the country

•  More venture capitalists are taking a magnifying glass to deals they previously would have funded. You want a new round of cash? Assume the position.

•  $500 million annual investments to encourage the creation of high-wage jobs in clean energy manufacturing technologies

Apart from the big companies, however, the start-ups and entrepreneurs that provide the tech industry with its lifeblood must wonder why they don’t get included in the conversation. It’s not as if they can’t use the help. With the VCs spooked by an increasingly gruesome economy, the days of easy money are over.

•  New “Insourcing Markets Tax Credit” to spur business investment communities facing global competition

•  The pace of VC investment in Web 2.0 companies has begun to decline. Might 2008 be the make-or-break year for many advertising-based start-ups?

On the flip side, Clinton would end tax incentives that allow companies to ship jobs and capital overseas. She also wants to end the practice that lets companies defer paying U.S. taxes on income earned by their foreign subsidiaries. But the reforms offered by Clinton, Obama, and McCain are primarily focused on big companies. It’s a page out of the Willie Sutton handbook of political nose-counting: you suck up to the places where the most votes are.

•  An increase in the existing R&D credit by 50% and the creation of a new 40% R&D credit for basic research

(Credit:
Declan McCullagh/CNET News.com)

OK, nothing wrong with a little pork barrel action this time of the campaign season. And some of the ideas are not half-bad: So, for example, she favors:

Aug 23

OpSource is hosting a very timely conference in San Francisco this week on software-as-a-service. What with the meltdown in the economy and continuing concern about the cost and environmental impact of energy use, there’s interest in how cloud computing will impact the IT world.

As they used to say back in my Brooklyn neighborhood, whaddya gonna do? But truth be told, I was puzzled by all the no-shows. It wasn’t as if the other sessions being held at the same time–”SaaS marketing in a downturn” and “Architecting and delivery for SaaS success”–were so much more thrilling.

I heard it said at one of the sessions how IT compensation plans now hinge on how successful you are doing projects faster and doing them more inexpensively. That’s why SaaS advocates believe their timing couldn’t be any better. Maybe that’s misplaced optimism; we’ll see as the year progresses.

And what better way to cut through the hype over the so-called green aspects of SaaS than to assemble veteran technologists who might share their experiences with the uninitiated? That’s the usual format: People ready to impart knowledge to people eager to receive knowledge.

(Credit:
CNET News)

As I sat in a cavernous ballroom in San Francisco’s Westin St. Francis Hotel scribbling down notes, it dawned on me that I was one of, literally, a handful of people listening to the lecturer. At most, there were 10 or 15 of us–a pity because as he faced a sea of mostly empty seats, Randy Bias, a technology strategist for GoGrid, a supplier of cloud computing infrastructure, offered up a convincing brief on the energy-saving advantages of virtualization and why it makes sense to offload server functions to the cloud.

Good idea but, well, maybe another day.

Could it be that “green” remains too squishy a concept for most of these red-blooded show-me-the-money types? I buttonholed one attendee in a hallway, who agreed as he was munching down a free ice cream provided by the show’s sponsors. But the proverbial man on the street interview doesn’t suffice.

He was followed on stage by Adrian Bowles, a director at Datamonitor, who was equally eloquent about why there are compelling business reasons to rip up the procedures of hardware provisioning that IT followed until the recession (some call it a depression) hit. “The old days of ‘buy it, plug it in, and run it’ are probably gone forever,” Bowles said, proceeding to lay out a hard-headed case on behalf of going green.

But this much is clear: telling the boss that you’re saving the environment in the process is not likely to be the clincher. Ever.

By then, I counted eight people–eight–in the ballroom (not including the speaker). Most of the folks attending this two-day kaffeeklatsch couldn’t be bothered with a topic that obviously bored them silly. No matter that
green tech at its most basic is technology done with a low environmental impact. For some reason, a discussion of low-energy technologies, virtualization, and improved cooling techniques weren’t enough to hook them.

Aug 23

Gary Kovacs, vice president of product management and marketing for Adobe, was promoted to general manager of the new combined business unit and will take over for Ramadan. Kovacs will report to Kevin Lynch, the company’s chief technology officer.

The move coincides with the departure of Al Ramadan, who was in charge of Adobe’s mobile unit. Ramadan spent nearly 10 years at Adobe and Macromedia, Adobe said in a press release.

The company is still trying to consolidate business units from its 2005 acquisition of Macromedia.

Adobe Systems, maker of Photoshop and Acrobat software, is folding the company’s mobile group into its platform operations as a way to create one platform for computers, handsets, and other consumer devices.

« Previous Entries Next Entries »