For anyone who caught the Powerpoint slide deck from what has come to be known as Sequoia Capital’s “Holy Sh*t” Meeting, this is shaping up to be a challenging environment for even the most innovative startups to raise capital or indeed, survive at all.

But if you heard the who’s-who of Silicon Valley venture fund partners that were gathered for a panel at the recent Web 3.0 Conference, or even a recent NYSIA panel discussion featuring Fred Wilson from Union Square Ventures, you’d come away with more of a sense of cautious optimism rather than the “OMG it’s the freaking apocalypse” ethos that many seem to have adopted as the the startup worldview du jour.

So for the benefit of those who might have an interest in what some of Silicon Valley’s VC wonks were saying, I’ve compiled the highlights from the discussion in this third installment from the Web 3.0 Conference. The panel was moderated by Rebekah Wu, CEO of Right Hand Partners. I’ve done my best to attribute comments where possible.

On what should make it into a presentation or pitch to [...]]]> http://blog.reflexionsdata.com/2008/10/27/vc-calm-in-an-economic-storm/ Cloud computing is all the rage these days. Albert Wenger of Union Square Ventures gave an interesting talk at the Web 2.0 Expo in NYC recently which covered some of the implications of cloud computing. At the Web 3.0 Conference there was a lively discussion about some of the more technical issues surrounding cloud computing, software as a service, and web architectures in general. Here are some of the points that were made:

I’ve compiled some comments and insights from the sessions I attended. I thought I’d share them here for anyone who’s interested. This is the first of three rounds of comments, split into Strategy, Technology, and VC/Startups. These are my best attempts at paraphrasing based on my notes and I’ve done my best to attribute these comments where possible.

As just about everyone has already heard, Google has released its own open source web browser called Google Chrome. The open source community project is called Chromium. With a powerhouse like Google behind it, will this be a significant challenge to Internet Explorer and will it change how we use the internet? We won’t know for quite a while, but we can gain some insight by looking at Google’s motivation and the technologies they choose to incorporate.

With Mozilla’s Firefox being open source and having a few years of maturity behind it, why didn’t Google simply contribute code to the project?  One reason is Firefox’s focus on streamlining basic web browsing while Chrome’s focus is on richer web applications.  Google’s view of the web is one of increasingly complicated client-server applications.  They see a gradual paradigm shift in the internet, which they are happy to help grow, but which would require a web browser more dedicated to the task.

Another reason for starting from scratch might be one of control.  While it is open source, Chrome’s direction is effectively controlled by Google.  They are the primary developers and any project forks would get only a fraction of Google’s visibility with the public.  The [...]]]> http://blog.reflexionsdata.com/2008/09/05/will-google-chrome-change-the-internet/ Unless you follow the often arcane world of web standards and the organization that defines them, you probably haven’t heard much about two emerging standards that by some credible accounts will do more to change the landscape of the internet than anything since the web itself: RDF and SPARQL.

Part of what makes these technologies so compelling is their elegance: they are incredibly simple and yet have the potential to yield extremely powerful and useful results. (NB: while this entry focuses on RDF and SPARQL, these are only two pieces of a larger heirarchy of standards and frameworks designed to help realize the semantic web as a widespread and practical technology.)

RDF, or Resource Description Framework, is a collection of methods for structuring information and representing knowledge. The goal is to enable applications to automatically catalogue and exchange information based on common sets of meaningful terms, or ontologies. In its simplest form, RDF statements are triples of the form (a,b,c) representing subject-predicate-object statements. It’s a subtle but powerful tool that can enable the efficient sharing of facts — e.g., (”Kinshasa”,”isCapitalOf”,”Democratic Republic of Congo”) might be a representation of a fact about an African nation’s capital (note that the same triple can be used to derive information about both the subject and object). [...]]]> http://blog.reflexionsdata.com/2008/08/16/two-web-standards-that-will-change-the-world/ When it comes to fragmentation of audiences, markets, and media, the trend line is clear: we are collectively becoming not a single audience of billions but a million audiences of thousands, hundreds, or even one.

It’s a fascinating long term side-effect of media decentralization that’s been predicted for decades by media visionaries like Marshall McLuhan (pictured right) and, dare I say, Andy Warhol. The one-to-many paradigm of network television and weekly newsmagazines understandably has a homogenizing effect, both in reinforcing a common identity and in shaping public opinion. The many-to-many model of social media and its various manifestations (blogs, wikis, social bookmarks) has been turning this model upside-down.

Of course marketers have been using this to their advantage for years, from the highly targeted narrowcasting as seen in political campaigns to highly personalized direct mail. But the social web is both responding to and further cultivating this fragmentation.

Social platforms like Ning have emerged to provide ad hoc and on-demand networks meant to service everything from 5-person knitting clubs to Jay Z’s millions of fans. The single-network solutions like MySpace and Facebook have been incredibly powerful in generating public awareness of social networks. But they have discovered that the users of today’s web are a fickle bunch, [...]]]> http://blog.reflexionsdata.com/2008/07/25/the-fragmented-social-web/ At sometime just before 12PM EDT the Amazon Simple Storage Service (or “S3″ for short) began to fail, causing major disruptions among applications that rely on the service for cheap and virtually unlimited storage. Amazon’s string of status updates throughout the day barely masks the complete-meltdown nature of the incident. Five hours later the service was restored.

For the uninitiated, S3 is a central part of Amazon’s family of service-based solutions and has been regarded as one of the most useful and reliable of the bunch. In short: it means that developers can offload storage of large or oft-requested files to a trusted third party without having to worry about costly bandwidth, hardware, and sys admins, and far more cheaply than content delivery networks (”CDN’s”) like Akamai. While Amazon charges based on usage of the service, stories abound with companies that save hundreds or thousands of dollars a month by shifting storage to S3.

Analysts have largely responded positively to the service, which originally grew out of Amazon’s internal infrastructure efforts and has come to symbolize the company as a major player in the emerging software-as-a-service landscape of so-called “utility computing.”

What’s noteworthy about this event is twofold: 1) the [...]]]> http://blog.reflexionsdata.com/2008/07/21/amazon-s3-failure-delivers-sanity-check/ In the ever-shifting landscape of internet titans, the Microsoft/Yahoo! power struggle is looking more like a teenage soap opera, albeit one with billions of dollars and control of the #2 internet search position in play. But what’s more, the side effects of the struggle are starting to point to a power play for dominance of the burgeoning world of the semantic web.

Besides the posturing and very public nature of both companies’ actions, what’s most interesting — and sometimes most telling — are the investments, partnerships, and acquisitions that have been unfolding since the saga began.

One of the more recent moves was Microsoft’s acquisition of the semantic search firm Powerset, itself coming on the heels of Yahoo!’s recent announcement of its open search platform, providing some support for semantic data to third party developers.

The Powerset acquisition is more than bet-hedging against losing out on its bid for Yahoo!. What Microsoft has started to understand is that the next killer app of the web will be found in the nascent semantic technologies and standards that are only starting to take shape.

Companies large and small are starting to invest big money in semantic web research and development. But if Microsoft can spend big money buying their way [...]]]> http://blog.reflexionsdata.com/2008/07/07/in-microsoftyahoo-struggle-the-semantic-web-may-benefit/ About a month ago, those of us who follow changes in Google’s search result rankings with a level of enthusiasm usually reserved for sports franchises woke up to something frightening: The Dewey Update.

Google normally makes daily changes to their search result rankings, so finding yourself in position 3 when you were in position 4 yesterday is not abnormal. But it was quite shocking for many webmasters to wake up one morning and discover their site completely removed from Google’s search results.

Google’s primary goal should be to deliver the best (i.e., most relevant) search results to its users. This is what ensures that users will keep coming back and what maintains Google’s marketshare. However, the reasons behind this update (although impossible to pinpoint) appear to be focused on ranking Google’s internal pages higher than others.

After the update, Google Books search results were suddenly ranking close to the ever-dominant Wikipedia pages. In addition, Youtube and Google News content was being displayed prominently over other commercial listings. This looks like a blatant abuse of Google’s position. Their mantra “Do No Evil” implies a commitment to being fair and balanced—manipulating search results to put their own pages first is clearly an unfair tactic that hurts both users and webmasters.

Fortunately, this update was short lived. After Google’s spin master http://blog.reflexionsdata.com/2008/04/30/do-no-evil/ If the web of today was the music industry of the 1960’s and if memes were bands, then social networking would be The Beatles. And startups have been chasing after the next killer social networking app like so many crazed schoolgirls.

What’s difficult about analyzing social applications and to what extent they will actually change the landscape of the web is discerning the real innovation from the me-too-isms that too often pervade the business plans of web startups. And some of the biggest social networking sites are essentially a rehash of similar concepts from an earlier web. I’m not really sure why MySpace is that much different from Geocities circa 1995 with an embedded mp3 player but maybe I’m missing something.

Tech axiom #2: the most innovative companies are not always the most successful (see also: Xerox PARC).

Despite what some social web evangelists might have us believe, these tools will not fundamentally alter the dynamics of human social behavior. Instead the most successful applications will model and improve upon those dynamics. Finding a good doctor in the 21st century won’t be much different from the 20th or 19th centuries: simply put, you ask recommendations from people you trust. [...]]]> http://blog.reflexionsdata.com/2008/04/09/a-brave-new-social-web/