Emergic: August 22, 2005 Archives

Monday, August 22, 2005

Skype as NextGen PBX

Om Malik offers a guest post by Jesse Kopelman:

The business model I envision for Skype could be generalized as Centrex service. The idea behind Centrex is you want the benefits of a PBX but not the cost of buying the equipment and the hassle of maintaining it. So, you get a company (usually your local phone company) to do these things for you and send you a monthly bill. What are the benefits of a PBX? The most common are things like voicemail, being able call the other people on the PBX for free, and the cost savings of being able to efficiently share a smaller number of lines than users. Funny how those things are pretty much what you get from using Skype. What is more, most PBX/Centrex users have fancy phones that let them have multiple simultaneous calls and make it easy to conference calls together – functionality found in the Skype client.

Skype goes beyond the traditional PBX features with its support for IM and ability to share contact information with other applications. These features are exactly the selling points of the newest software based PBX systems. The IM thing especially, as it ties into something called “presence.” The thing that gives Skype a huge advantage over say the latest Avaya PBX is that you automatically get the advantage of having millions of existing users on the same “PBX” as you and it costs nothing to add more. Meanwhile, with a traditional PBX/Centrex solution you are going to be paying a monthly fee for each and every user and you don’t even want to think about what it would cost to have 3 million simultaneous users.

Telecom | PermaLink | Comments (1)

Hi,

http://forum.skype.com/viewtopic.php?t=34108
This link maybe show a better solution.

Posted by yuchihliao

Mirror Worlds

This post by Nivi reminded me of David Gelernter's idea of Mirror Worlds:

Want to know what the blog-o-sphere will look like in 2015?

Look at the virtual worlds of today’s Massively Multiplayer Online Games (MMOGs) like Second Life.

Want to know why everyone will have a blog tommorrow, just like everyone has an email address today?

Because your blog will be your avatar in virtual reality. And you can’t play in virtual reality without an avatar. So you’re gonna need a blog, baby.

When you blog today, you are participating in a Massively Multiplayer Online Conversation (MMOC). Today’s text blogs are like the text-based MUD games of yesteryear. These MUDs eventually grew up to become today’s 3-d MMOGs. And inna future, blogs will grow up from text to audio to video. And blogs will come to resemble the avatars in today’s MMOGs.

BlogStreet | PermaLink | Comments (0)

Linux Growing Pains

WSJ writes:

As use of Linux and other open-source software spreads, the largest buyers of computing gear are demanding a new level of service, support and functions from the software. Many customers jumped on Linux for easy cost savings, since it doesn't come with the steep annual licensing fees that commercial software usually does. But to make a bigger bet by moving to Linux for such core corporate functions as central databases and transaction-processing systems, these users are demanding many features found on commercial software, including a large variety of add-on application programs and management tools that are easy to use.

"In a way, Linux is now perhaps turning the corner," says Eric Singleton, chief information officer at retailer Tommy Hilfiger Corp. His company had been running its Web shopping site, Tommy.com, on Linux -- but recently switched it to Microsoft software. He calls Linux "a great product," but adds, "it's got to get the final tier of reliability and predictability that I'm going to bet a multibillion-dollar corporation's future on."

Software | PermaLink | Comments (2)

I find it odd that someone will switch to Microsoft servers because they are more reliable than linux servers. It seems someone is drinking Microsoft KoolAid...

Posted by Anand Gupta

Anyhow I already don't have good opinion about Tommy Hilfigar products due to certain comments made by its founder. This only confirms my idea about them. Downright Stupid. Their explanation for this move looks amateurish.

Posted by Krish

Social Search

Jeremy Zawodny of Yahoo writes in the context of its My Web 2.0:

everyone I know is an expert... in something. If I have questions about electronics or radios, I'd ask my Dad. He's always looking at that stuff on-line. Astronomy and Astrophotography? My Uncle. Construction and remodeling? My brother in law. Real estate? A couple of my old college friends. The list goes on.

The point is that for most topics I might want to know more about, I already know someone that's smarter than me on the subject. I have my very own community of experts (we all do). I just need a way to tap into their accumulated experience.

My Web 2.0, the latest release of our My Web service might just be what they need. It gives *them* an easy way to bookmark, annotate, tag, and share sites they discover. And it gives *me* a way to get at their stuff. I can subscribe to an RSS feed of someone's newest bookmarks, or maybe just those sites they tag as "funny" or "real estate." I can search my entire community's bookmarks. Or I can just start tag surfing to see what turns up.

Think of this as the Memex.

Search Engines | PermaLink | Comments (1)

That was possible with http://del.icio.us/ a long time ago.

Posted by Anshul

The Neglected Software Market

[via Sadagopan] Jason Fried writes:

The most innovative software designed over the next 10 years will 1. be web-based, 2. will come from small teams, 3. will come from self-funded companies, and 4. will be for the “side-business” or 1-10 person business market.

The “long tail” is a buzzword. What’s real are the millions of side-businesses out there. Independent freelancers, people who work for their employer during the day and then run their own side business at night, passionate hobbyists that generate some income (and even those that don’t). It seems everyone has one these days. A little something here, a little something there. Something they love to do, or something they have to do, but the trend is clear: Many people are building their own side-businesses. And they need software (just not too much).
...
When you think small business, think 1-10 people not 50-100. There’s an endless supply of 1-10 person companies. Who cares about the Fortune 500? It’s time to care about the Fortune 5,000,000. Forget the enterprise market. Forget the mid-sized company market. Build for the smallest of small companies and you’ll find a thirsty, neglected market waiting for you.

Software | PermaLink | Comments (0)

TECH TALK: India Needs More Entrepreneurs: Start-up!

The recent issue of Business Week has a cover story on China and India. The bottomline: “The balance of power will shift to the East as China and India evolve.” This was the backdrop of a discussion I had with a US-based venture capitalist of Indian origin who had an interesting take on the problems with entrepreneurship in India. He made four points.

First, salaries in India will rise faster than cost of living which would make it unattractive for employees working with the international majors to quit and create or join a start-up. Second, even the ones who are venturing out seem to be more focused on services than products. Third, the few in the products area seem content OEMing their creation to the market leaders rather than taking them on with full stacks. Finally, Indian companies lack vision to think big and global. I agreed with him on all four counts and added one of my own. It is well nigh impossible to do a tech, product-oriented start-up because angel and early-stage funding is simply not there.

Of course, there are exceptions, but we are not talking about those here. What is under discussion is the need for Indians to venture out into the world of entrepreneurship, build intellectual property and create wealth, which hopefully will find its way back into the system to fund more start-ups. India may be becoming a hotbed of innovation as an increasing share of global R&D shifts here. But Indians are still not making the shift to entrepreneurship and aiming to build the next Microsofts, Ciscos and Googles – we seem to be content working for them.

This week’s Tech Talk is, thus, an exhortation and a plea to arms – India needs Entrepreneurs. They need to go out there and build out the next global giants. In doing so, like in any race, many will fail. But a few will succeed. Together, they will inspire the next generation. That, according to me, will be the real coming of age of Indian technology and entrepreneurship – when we start building the products the world needs out of India. To do this, we need to get out of the comfort zone we find ourselves so happily ensconced in and make the leap.

Two years ago, I wrote a Letter to Non-Resident Indians, urging them to consider returning to India given the changes that were taking place and the opportunities that were opening up. I am glad to say that what has started as a trickle is now becoming a steady stream. It is not yet a flood, but we will get there. This Tech Talk can be thought of as a plea to all the experienced techies and managers sitting in well-paying jobs in India and outside to consider the entrepreneurial route in India. Why and How? That’s the part we will take up in the rest of this series.

Tomorrow: Why?

Tech Talk | PermaLink | Comments (13)

Hello Rajesh,
I agree with you on this point, even I at swould like to start up, but the question I always have is how do I get funding? What would I do not get the funding. Leaving my current job is not the problem, but how do I start a start up is the question?

Posted by Jayanth

Hello Rajesh,

The points are very well articulated. This is exactly what I am experiencing in my current startup. Its too hard to convince people to join a startup - salaries is a major constraint. Funds at seed or angel level just don't exist or even these funds do funding maninly from a perspective that product/market everything exists. Most of my other friends who are running companies have ventured out into services. Product startups need more persistence. To build up truly competitive companies like Google, Microsoft, Cisco - an environment needs to be grown up right from the ground up level starting from the university. Current efforts of opening incubation units, forums like TiE are a start but they are far from achieving any significant achievement.

Regards
Sunil

Posted by Sunil Goyal

I think one of the issues with us Marketing. Isnt it?

Posted by veerj

I think one of the issues with us Marketing. Isnt it?

Posted by veerj

Hi Rajesh,
Great post! I think its a blessing that the Googles and Microsofts of the world are setting shop here in India. These serve as the training ground for future product company entrepreneurs. When the majority of industry hasn't seen up close how product companies function, it is unfair to expect lots of product startups. But its definitely happening. Your own Novatium is a great example of course. And that is our endeavor at Tekriti as well.
-Gaurav

Posted by Gauav

People who join for high salaries will leave for higher salaries. And they'll always expect to be given a clear job profile, a team to get things done and a nice annual budget to accompish that. An startup by definition can't do all this. If everything was known, teams & structures in place and a boss to ask what/how to do, established companies would do that job much better.

Startups NEED TO BE SHORT OF MONEY because you need to find out better ways to do whatever you are trying to do, otherwise there are many cos. with more money/people to do it better. There are no examples of successful startups which started with huge cash chests. MS or Hotmail OR Google OR Indiaworld. Startup CAN NOT have cash as their strength because a MS or Google will always have more.

Startups attract appropriate people if you stop acting like an employer. I had to sell my company more to the prospective employee than he would try to sell his skills to me. And i always had a week or so of trial period. There is no other way to assess a person than actually working with them for a few days. It is much better to part after a week than to part after a few months with damage done to both sides.

I have the experience of a failed startup behind me, everything was fine till i started succeeding in raising money. Then i was only doing that for 2 years, delegating other things. when the company went down, we had the best of people, a large balance sheet, dealer networks, the works; but a loss making operation.
That's what too early funding does to you, makes you a manager instead of an entrepreuner.
It is much easier to accept that your product is not good or maybe ahead of it's time when your investments are still small.

And the more funded you were the worse is the fall. Don't think that since it's not your money you are better off.

Just my 2p.

Posted by Amitabh Ranjan

Rajesh:
After reading your TECH TALK, I looked at the Webster’s Student Dictionary (2002 Edition). It says, “Entrepreneur is one who undertakes to start and conduct an enterprise or business, assuming full control and risk.” If we follow this definition, the question of “angel and early-stage funding” does not arise. Microsoft, Cisco, Google, and Yahoo have all had their beginnings in the proverbial garages. Only after their early products became big enough for their garages, did angel investors and venture capitalists evaluated, funded, and helped their growth. Great companies and products ensued.
Actually, the situation with young Indians could have been even easier. Parents pay for all their college education, overseas education (in some cases), and support them even after college. They have the right conditions to emulate the US entrepreneurs. But, unfortunately, even the rich urban Indian parents expect their young to get top jobs (fancy cars, flats, and attendants) rather than risk a couple of years doing some development work on their PCs in their bedrooms.
The colleges (even IITs & IIMs) have no incubators and do not inculcate a spirit of entrepreneurship (read risk and payoff) but tout the high starting salaries for their graduates.
In the US, there is a culture of entrepreneurship even in the low-tech sector and volunteer organizations like SCORE (www.score.org) assist ordinary citizens who want to take risks and start businesses.
I venture to say that the big product ideas have not occurred to young Indians; at least not while they were in India. If government provides a safety net, people will take risks; if government guarantees a comfortable and tenured career, risk-taking will be shunned. No risk no high pay-off.
I hope they will prove me wrong.

Posted by Som Karamchetty, PHD

Rajesh:::

You have thrown up a very big challenge to next gen. Indian entrepreneures here-to come out with Made in India products for emerging markets...

This is a golden dream for many entrepreneures who would like to think product based startup with product geared towards mass market would be sure shot of rags to riches story ...

However, product based startup needs to balance multiple factors together as well as need faster time to market...faster feedback loop from "early adopters" and at the same time pull in features required by "late majority:.

A very well balanced feedback on product innovation and why it is indeed difficult to choose product based strategy is very well explained by Don Norman at jnd.org in one of his time-tested essay:

http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/the_life_cycle_of_a_.html

"""""""""""""""
So why is it that good products can fail and inferior products can succeed? This became the theme for the book.

The story is complex: it takes a book to explain. But there are three themes.

One: A successful product must be balanced: marketing, technology, and user experience all play critical roles, but one cannot dominate the others.

Two: There is a big difference between infrastructure products, which I call non-substitutable goods, and traditional products, substitutable goods. With traditional goods, a company can survive with a stable, but non-dominant market share. Coke and Pepsi both survive. Cereals and soaps have multiple brands. With infrastructure goods, there can be just one. MS-DOS won over the Macintosh OS, and that was that. MS-DOS transitioned to Windows, and the dominance continued. VHS tape triumphed over Beta. Most infrastructures are dictated by the government, which assures agreement to a single standard. When there is no standard, as in AM stereo or digital cellular options in the US, there is chaos.

Three: Different factors are important at different stages in the development of a technology. In the early days, technology dominates. Who cares if it is easy to use? All that matters is better, faster, cheaper, more powerful technology. In the middle stages, marketing dominates. And in the end, mature stages -- where the technology is a commodity. User experience can dominate, user experience and marketing. As in soap and cereal. As in watches. Swatch sells its watches for their emotional appeal, not their accuracy: accuracy is taken for granted.""""""""