Timothy Chen

GOOG 日前對全體員工發了一封信，標題是 ”Meaning of Open”，接著也把整篇文章發表在官方部落格公開分享。(這是我覺得新聞稿和部落格 mix 的好處之一。) 另外同事也拿出 Eric Schonfeld 2007 年底曾寫過的一篇“Who is the Openest of Them all”，作為不同立場的辯論。以下各節錄一段：

. . . open systems win. This is counter-intuitive to the traditionally trained MBA who is taught to generate a sustainable competitive advantage by creating a closed system, making it popular, then milking it through the product life cycle. The conventional wisdom goes that companies should lock in customers to lock out competitors. . . . a well-managed closed system can deliver plenty of profits. They can also deliver well-designed products in the short run — the iPod and iPhone being the obvious examples — but eventually innovation in a closed system tends towards being incremental at best (is a four blade razor really that much better than a three blade one?) because the whole point is to preserve the status quo. Complacency is the hallmark of any closed system. If you don’t have to work that hard to keep your customers, you won’t. (source: Meaning of Open)

But don’t be fooled. Companies are very selective about the areas where they choose to be open, and they very rarely open up their core source of profits voluntarily. . . . So the next time a company touts how open it is, ask yourself how that will help it make more money. Don’t confuse openness with altruism. (source: Who is the Openest of Them all)

Just because industry pressures and increased interconnectedness are forcing companies to embrace open technologies, don’t confuse openness with profitability. Open standards tend to be good for spurring the adoption of new technologies, but not so good for generating profits directly. That is why companies choose to be open along axes where they don’t compete. Google, for instance, is a big proponent of open standards in social networking, mobile networks, Web applications, and practically everywhere —except the one place it makes money. Its advertising system is a black box. You also never hear any talk coming out of Google about opening up the search algorithms that drive all of those advertising revenues. In contrast, Google has no problem championing open standards in industries that it is hoping to disrupt (by commoditizing existing business models with open standards, and making money with advertising instead).  (source: Who is the Openest of Them all)

嗯，我重複唸了三次 “by commoditizing [competitors’] existing business models with open standards”。這真的挺嚇人的。如果你能穿著免費黑披風，拿著免費鐮刀，讓路過的花花草草都枯萎，然後再從這些殘骸中獲利。這已經不是王道了，這是天喻。

簡單來說，這年頭要談「開放」：

1. 非核心競爭力的產品統統提倡 Openness

2. 輸掉了也沒關係的市場統統提倡 Openness

3. 消費者比較能接觸到的表層統統提倡 Openness

然後是賺錢的嘴臉，要間接一點，才不會被人嫌。GOOG 值得長抱。

-- Related posts:

1. 10 Characteristics of Great Companies
2. How not to email spam your customers
3. 本日佳句 - The Making of Goldman Sachs, Part V
4. Monopoly or no Monopoly, That’s the Question
5. 微軟的的雲端計算平台叫做…Windows Azure

My friend Mark Pincus told me when he was first starting Zynga that social networks had to become like cocktail parties. You needed things for people to do in them so they would stick around and engage. (source)

-- Related posts:

1. 本日佳句 – Smaller Networks Combined
2. 本日佳句 – Social Media is Here to Stay…Now What?
3. Social Media Relationship Building 101
4. 本日佳句 - Danah Boyd
5. 本日佳句 – Why Smart People do Negative Thinking

這回主要理由是今年 11 月起， GOOG 在北美和英國地區試驗 Product Listing and Extension Ads，有機會帶來新的營收注益。但不論怎麼看，都有點像是眼見 GOOG 每股市價即將超越之前的目標價 ($635)，所以趕快塞個理由來調高營收展望和 EPS？

Based on economic trends, discussions with ad agencies, and uptake of
Product Listing Ads, we raise 4Q2009, 2010, and 2011 revenue and EPS by 2%-4%, and forecast 15% qoq consolidated gross revenue growth in 4Q (3% faster than consensus) and 2% qoq in 1Q (2% faster than consensus).

 

– James Mitchell, Goldman Sachs

Product Listing and Extension Ads 圖解

We estimate that:

 

• The average AdWords CPC in the US is around $0.50, so 100 AdWords clicks on the average listing would generate revenue of $50.

 

• If the average item listed on Product Ads has a unit price of $40 (matching eBay’s average selling price, excluding automobiles) then at a 10% revenue share, Google would generate $4 per transaction.

 

• If the conversion rate from clicks to transactions is 10%, then Google would generate revenue of $40 from 100 Product Ads clicks, 20% lower than the $50 it might generate from 100 AdWords clicks.

 

• However, we assume that the appeal of photographs, plus their novelty in nonimage queries, may encourage users to click at twice the rate of traditional text ads, so that Google could generate $80 from 200 Product Ads clicks in the same space where it would otherwise generate $50 from 100 AdWords clicks. Put another way, 25% more clicks could generate a neutral revenue outcome if CPC is 20% lower for Product Ads than for AdWords, and we believe that Product Ads should generate an uplift in clicks substantially greater than 25%.

 

– James Mitchell, Goldman Sachs

 

ps.這 estimation 的假設也太粗糙了吧…我不相信堂堂高盛會端出這麼像在玩模擬城市的 model…請告訴我這是庶民版分析報告才會這樣…

GOOG 做了很多好事，但是特別去注意它「做了哪些能產生直接賺錢機會」的事更加有趣。像這回的 Product Listing Ads 和之前的 Music Search。

-- Related posts:

1. 高盛繼續維持 GOOG 目標價 $670 不變
2. Nexus One 為 GOOG 帶來 9% 營收成長 0% – 2% EBIT 成長
3. GOOG 的潛在 Risk
4. GOOG 4Q 2009 財報出爐
5. Google Valuation

comScore 12 月釋出的報告，其中一項調查，問打算在未來三個月內購買智慧型手機的受訪者，最想要買那一款？結果如下：

想買 iPhone 的佔了 20%，想買 Android 的佔了 17%，想買 BlackBerry 的，自己加吧。至於 Windows Mobile 呢…？

comScore Bonus chart: 這回有 WM 了，但 APPL 也趕上了。

AdMob 也放出了一份 iPhone / iPod Touch 全球市場市佔分佈報告，以及各市場市占率的成長幅度比較。

看了一下 AdMob 分析報告的首頁，彷彿有種 WM doesn’t matter 的感覺…

-- Related posts:

1. Apple Q3 2009 Earnings Call Highlights
2. Windows Mobile 6.5新介面Demo @ Mix09
3. General Purpose v.s. Dedicated Purpose
4. Apple 將併購手機廣告公司 Quattro Wireless
5. Morgan Stanley Mobile Internet Report

早上花了一點時間，看完 Wire 對 ”3D Realms” (製作毀滅公爵系列的那家) 關門大吉所做的詳細報導。畢竟 Duke Nukem 3D 曾經是 PC Game 史上的一個里程碑，曾經是繼德軍總部、毀滅戰士之後的 FPS 遊戲霸主，也是我在 1997 年資訊展買的唯一一套遊戲…現在雖然盒子丟了，但光碟內附的小冊子至今都還留著，冊子封底也有一張製作團隊大合照。諷刺的是，3D Realms 解散的那一天，也拍了一張類似的大合照…

3D Realm 會關門的客觀事實很簡單 – Duke Nukem 3D 的續集 - Duke Nukem Forever ，製作了 12 年，卻遲遲無法上市。士氣榨乾了，錢也燒光了，甚至演變到和發行商鬧上法庭的局面。

從報導看來，背後的原因是：

1. 創辦人對完美的苛求 (或說是不想輸給自家上一個作品)，導致遊戲引擎、遊戲內容一改再改，上市時間一延再延

2. Duke Nukem 3D 成功大賣，創辦人拍胸脯保證：資金不成問題，卻也讓開發過程失去了紀律

從報導看來，感覺千錯萬錯，都是創辦人 George Broussard 的錯，但想想看，如果一個男人，把人生中最黃金的 12 年，統統壓注在一套遊戲上，換成是你，你會不偏執嗎？

George Broussard, co-owner of 3D Realms and the man who headed the Duke Nukem Forever project for its entire 12-year run. Now 46 years old, he’d spent much of his adult life trying to make a single game, and failed over and over again.

Long live Duke Nukem!

-- Related posts:

1. Who are you

Don’t you know that most people take most things because that’s what’s given them, and they have no opinion whatever? Do you wish to be guided by what they expect you to think they think or your own judgment?

-- Related posts:

1. 本日佳句 – The Fountainhead p.425
2. 本日佳句 – The Fountainhead p. 24
3. 本日佳句 – The Fundamental
4. 本日佳句 – The Making of Goldman Sachs, Part IV
5. 本日佳句 – Graham sums up his lifetime of experience

“ What’s the real me?” She asked. For the first time, she looked attentive; not compassionate; but at least, attentive.

“ What’s the real anyone?” He said, encouraged. “It’s not just the body. It’s…the soul.”

“ What is the soul? ”

“ It’s – you. The thing inside you. ”

“ The thing that thinks and values and makes decisions? ”

“ Yes, yes, that’s it. And the thing that feels. You’ve – you’ve given it up. ”

“ So there are two things that one can’t give up: One’s thoughts and one’s desires? ”

 

***

 

“ You’re beginning to see. aren’t you, Peter?  Shall I make it clear. You’ve never wanted me to be real. You never wanted anyone to be. But you didn’t want to show it.  You wanted an act to help your act. – a beautiful act, complicated act, all twists, trimmings and words.  All words. You didn’t like what I said about Vincent Knowlton. You liked it when I said the same thing under cover of virtuous sentiment. You didn’t want me to believe. You only wanted me to convince you that I believed. My real soul, Peter? It’s real only when it’s independent – you’ve discovered that, haven’t you? It’s real when it chooses curtains and desserts – you’re right about that – curtains, desserts and religions, Peter, and the shape of buildings. But you’ve never wanted that.  You wanted a mirror. People want nothing but mirrors around them. To reflect them while they’re reflecting too. You know, like the senseless infinity you get from two mirrors facing each other across a narrow passage. Usually in the more vulgar kind of hotels. Reflections of reflections and echoes of echoes. No beginning and no end. No center and no purpose. I gave you what you wanted. I became what you are, what your friends are, what most of  humanity is so busy being – only with the trimmings. I didn’t go around spouting book reviews to hide my emptiness of judgment – I said I had no judgment.  I didn’t borrow designs to hide my creative impotence – I created nothing.  I didn’t say that equality is a noble conception and unity the chief goal of mankind – I just agree with everybody. You call it death, Peter? That kind of death – I’ve imposed on you and on everyone around us. But you – you haven’t done that. People are comfortable with you, they like you, they enjoy your presence. You’ve spared them the blank death. Because you’ve imposed it – on yourself. “

 

- Ayn Rand

-- Related posts:

1. 本日佳句 – The Fountainhead p. 24
2. 本日佳句 - Jason Calacanis
3. 本日佳句 – for last night
4. 本日佳句 – The Making of Goldman Sachs, Part I
5. 本日佳句 – The Fountainhead, p 165

“Rules?” Said Roark. “Here are my rules: what can be done with one substance must never be done with another. No two materials are alike. No two sites on earth are alike. No two buildings have the same purpose. The purpose, the site, the material determine the shape. Nothing can be reasonable or beautiful unless it’s made by one central idea, and the idea sets every detail. A building is alive, like a man. it’s integrity is to follow it’s own truth, its’ one single theme, and to serve it’s own single purpose. A man doesn’t borrow pieces of his body. A building doesn’t borrow hunks of it’s soul. It’s maker gives it the soul and every wall, window and stairway to express it.

– Ayn Rand

-- Related posts:

1. 本日佳句 – The Fountainhead p.425
2. 本日佳句 – One of the Next Big Things
3. 本日佳句 – The Fountainhead, p 165
4. 本日佳句 - Jason Calacanis
5. 本日佳句 – The Making of Goldman Sachs, Part III

“Don’t you see?” Roark was saying. ”It’s a monument you want to build, but not to yourself. Not to your own life or your won achievement. To other people. To their supremacy over you. You’re not challenging that supremacy. You’re immortalizing it. You haven’t thrown it off – you’re putting it up forever. Will you be happy if you seal yourself for the rest of your life in that borrowed shape? Or if you strike free, for once, and build a new house, your own? You don’t  want the Randolph place. You want what it stood for. But what it stood for is what you’ve fought all your life.”

– Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead

-- Related posts:

1. 本日佳句 – The Fountainhead p. 24
2. 本日佳句 – The Fountainhead p.425
3. 本日佳句 – QBQ 問題背後的問題
4. 本日佳句 - Jason Calacanis
5. 本日佳句 – The Fundamental

今天接到一通信用卡銀行打來的推銷電話，之所以沒馬上掛斷，是突然想聽聽她們葫蘆裡到底在賣什麼膏藥。

1. 首先先告訴你：我是你的個人服務專員，並且附上真實姓名、電話、員工編號

2. 接著告訴你一個只有少數經挑選會員獨享的別優惠，而且特別到不會透過 email、簡訊等方式對外公開

3. 講一大串好處

4. 重點來了，但是重點以相當輕鬆的口吻帶過重點：每月繳交 n 元保險費

5. 強調申辦方式很簡單，簡單到讓你忘記 n 元保費

6. 繼續透過情境、分享其他參與會員的個案，來強調一大串好處，好到讓你忘記 n 元保費

最後我實在是受不了了，所以就想個不失禮的辦法脫身。

短短幾分鐘，讓我想起平時我們的客戶是不是都這樣看待我們的 pitch 呢？你覺得我是笨蛋嗎？benefit is benefit, value is value，不是 benefit，不是 value 的東西，不論你再怎麼包裝，提供再怎麼逼真適切的情境，搬出再怎麼無堅不摧的 talking point，聽在客戶耳中，都還是糖漿。

除非客戶是笨蛋。而你的生意也是建立在和笨蛋的關係之上。

好處顯而易見的產品或服務，不需要請 MBA 來精心規劃 scenario。只需要給我陳述事實 (e.g. 媒體報導)，我自然會發現好處。當公司的產品需要四處兜情境和 case study 來說嘴時，代表 1) 產品價值不明顯、2) 產品太複雜。那為什麼不在最初設計規劃時，就把這些絆腳石考慮進去呢？

因為複雜，好處又不明顯的產品還是有官僚的機構和想往上爬的主事者會買。買賣雙方會一邊握手一邊附和著說，因為我們組織龐大、事業版圖龐大，所以要持續成長，所以需要這種複雜的專案；而要完成複雜的專案，就要夠採購複雜的工具和服務，才能夠完成這項艱辛的使命。

複雜的東西，總是暗藏著機會，不是嗎？

-- No related posts.

The rise of fast food content is upon us, and it’s going to get ugly.

今年六月，在一次飯局中和朋友聊到，過不久各式各樣的商業 Plurk、Facebook 帳號將如雨後春筍搬探出頭，而網路上的噪音 noise / signal ratio 將越來越高。最後 user 就會選擇 ignore 這些資訊，甚至是放棄使用這個平台。

現在台灣漸漸有這種跡象了。其實我們都不知道，我們早已經在臉書上練就一身「跳過噪音」的能力。沒錯，我就是說你的心理測驗魔人好友啦。

其實這不是這篇的重點。我的標題是從 Michael Arrington 那借過來。他點出了 “newer” media disrupt new media 的現象。而這些 newer media 代表的是講求速度、膚淺、或是消費 (or paraphrase) 其他原創內容的內容。一語貫之，就是 fast food content。

當 fast food content 統治了我們的視窗，第一個要忍受的就是重複出現的議題，特別是像某些重大新聞 breaking 時，例如 MJ 的消息。第二個就是花時間看完某篇膚淺文章後緊接而來的後悔感 (人人都以為自己是評論家，但除了很會下標題之外，內容實在乏善可陳 –> 老子 / 老娘被你這標題殺人法騙了)。第三個，也是最可怕的，就是雖然內容乏善可陳，但我還是忍不住要轉錄 / 分享給我的朋友，誰叫我已經養成了這個習慣了呢？這就是我存在於 FB / Plurk 的目的呀！結論：人人都像是在開 fast food content 的加盟店。

對媒體業來說，可能會發生劣幣逐良幣的情況。因為從今以後，還在那邊寫第一手、原創資訊的記者就是笨蛋，直接改寫別人的才叫做 work smart。深度的資訊沒有市場，發表能被轉錄的資訊才是總編輯批准的資訊。

我們混 FB / Plurk 的這代，將是一群見多識廣的有為青年，每天都能接收到朋友轉來的資點子子，未來進了職場，一定也能貢獻出破壞性創新。但每天接觸這些支離破碎的內容，刺激到的都是脊椎骨裡面的神經；另一方面來說，成為一個優秀人才的關鍵能力 — 邏輯，將沒有辦法被訓練到。不周全的思考，連帶也會影響到執行力。這就像是吃速食最後會變胖，造成行動緩慢；看太多 fast food content，也會讓點子塞滿大腦和肥腸，但卻沒有動手做的能力，造成點子一點一滴淤塞在脂肪。後遺症是什麼，就讓我們拭目以待。

好，我要繼續去生產 fast food content 了。

-- Related posts:

1. Monetize Online Content
2. 本日佳句 – subscription as if free
3. 情和意 值千金 忠誠的主顧值萬金

Further plans with Music Search?

We’re happy with it, but it’s definitely a start. But consider this: lyrics are the number two searched terms of all time on Google, and music comes in at number 9. Obviously, there’s a big user need.

Last question: there’s a Google Phone, isn’t there? Otherwise you’d be flat out denying it instead of giving me the pokerface.

(laughs)

- Marissa Meyer, Le Web Interview

GOOG 在美國已經推出 music search，搜尋結果除了可以直接串流試聽外，還會附上歌詞，以及最重要的「購買」連結。只不過因為合約關係，要在北美以外地區推出有些難度。

-- Related posts:

1. Quick Notes on Marissa Mayer Interview
2. Quick Notes: Marc Andreessen on Charlie Rose Interview
3. GOOG、News Corp.、MSFT 的三角戀愛
4. 高盛又調高 GOOG 目標價了
5. Quick Notes: Eric Schmidt on Charlie Rose Interview

老實說，這年頭還那些消費者(非商務人士)會想買 Sony, Apple, 之外的高階筆電？CULV 目前只有 Acer 和 ASUS 在主推，HP, Dell 等大廠不願意跟進，她們的觀點，就和媒體說的一樣，認為 CULV 卡在小比電和高階筆電中間，沒有市場。

但今年資訊展已經讓數字告訴我們，事實不是這樣。

我認為未來買高階筆電的人會越來越少，原本看上高階筆電輕薄質感的族群，會把錢花在更接近炫耀財的高階智慧型手機；剩下的，就是玩 game 和執行繪圖等高階工作的使用者。但因為線上遊戲要求的硬體效能其實已經沒有過去單機遊戲高，所以這個族群只會繼續痿縮。

就低階筆電來說，我自己的使用心得是：買過的人應該不會推薦朋友也去買一台。我幫朋友買的那台，後來也是換來抱怨 : P 這一切都是效能問題。我常懷疑 Atom 是不是要拿來做 single task 的處理器。只要多開幾個網頁和 Word 檔，系統資源就快被榨乾了，買小筆電的人雖然都認為自己只會做些簡單的文書處理，但相信我，現在影音資源橫流，小筆電買回家之後，一定會有拿來看影片的情況，這時，停格或是字幕對不上的問題，也會讓你想捶電腦。但當時大家不是說好只拿來做文書處理嗎？: P。另一方面，Intel 和 MS 也因為毛利率問題，不願意繼續支持小筆電成為主流，因此這個 segment 明年也不會有什麼搞頭。

所以一般廠商做高階筆電打不贏「精品廠」，做低階筆電無法滿足消費者，做 CULV 中階筆電就不是選擇了，而是必然要面對的趨勢。不然我實在不知道所謂的「潛在市場」在哪兒。甚至我們也不必為 CULV 貼上「中階」的標籤，因為當高階筆電逐漸 commoditized ，低階筆電逐漸被上游廠商和消費者排擠，甚至是被智慧型手機或電子書等裝置部份取代，從而淡出市場，結局將會是：不再有人稱 CULV 為中階筆電；CULV 成為主流筆電的代名詞。

-- No related posts.

之前 miss 掉一則人事新聞的 follow-up。日前網路上有不少聲量，責難 MSFT 資遣了BizSpark 的負責人 Don Dodge；此人在美國 (矽谷) 也算是想叮噹的人物 — 至少 Start-up 圈都還滿喜歡他的。TC 的 Michael Arrington 更是直接發文點出 MSFT 做了一個愚蠢的決定。而難能可貴的是，Don 在自己的 Blog 還是懷著感恩的心支持前公司做的決定。

接著，故事有了意想不到的發展。11 天之後，Google 向 Don 招手，他成了 Google 的員工。而 MSFT 也釋出了和 Don 的 JD 相當雷同的職缺。所以原先砍掉 Don，到底是策略改變，工作內容不再被需要呢？還是純粹為了省錢？總之就成了羅生門。

不過回歸到我的集中投資寡佔避險理論 — 同時持有 MSFT 和 GOOG 的股票，這時候效果就出來了。不論是那一方損失，不論人才最後往哪裡流，最後人才還是握在你手裡。potential earning power 還是留在系統中，沒有蒸發。

-- Related posts:

1. MSFT 與 GOOG 宿命之對決
2. GOOG、News Corp.、MSFT 的三角戀愛
3. GOOG 的小金牛
4. Credit Suisse 調高 GOOG 目標價至 $700
5. Google Valuation

Well I think there will be more bubbles, not fewer bubbles in the future. The reason is that information market as what we have today tends to create bubbles. People get excited, they get over excited, they get too excited, prices go up, people get too much happens too quickly and of course all theses collapse as the truth comes out.

So I thick it’s incredibly important for people to recognize that we do need regulation in some of these markets. The financial markets are too easy to be manipulated by personal interests, special interests, people who are trying to make a buck, an unfair one.

- Eric Schmidt

-- Related posts:

1. Quick Notes: Eric Schmidt on Charlie Rose Interview
2. Google CEO 周一宣布離開 Apple 董事會
3. 想成為巴菲特接班人，你必須至少是個…
4. Microsoft Yahoo! 10 年合作案之有 insight 的片段
5. Sam Altman on Charlie Rose Interview

從 CompuServe 到 AOL 到 YAHOO，入口網站之所以能獨霸一方，成為網民主要資訊來源，很大原因是因為傳統媒體公司不知道怎麼玩網路，所以把 distribution 的工作交給入口網站。然而，這樣的態勢未來幾年也許會有改變。

剛看到 WSJ 寫到美國幾家龍頭雜誌出版社，終於聯合起來，要製作一個像“Hulu” 一樣的數位平台。除了有些為電子書市場做準備的意涵外，也意味著傳統媒體界越來越熟悉網路世界的遊戲規則，甚至逐漸能嗅出趨勢。下一個，會不會是新聞版 Hulu 呢？

如果傳媒真的變聰明，那 YAHOO 的未來也許就不怎麼光明了。全球上 YAHOO 的使用者，很大一部份是為了看新聞等 premium content，如果 content provider 聯合起來，提供 user 更方便的 solution，那像 YAHOO 這種 content aggregator 可能要重新思考自己還有什麼長線競爭優勢。

畢竟出版業者擁有更專業的 gate keeper，一樣是人為挑選每日能登上版面的文章，出版業自己來做會更棒更有效率。

同業合作的難度本來就很高，但當競爭者之間彼此都有共同的敵人時，敵人的敵人，就是朋友。誰敢保證，繼電視業、雜誌業皆成立聯盟平台之後，電影業、音樂業等內容產業會不會如法炮製呢？

該重新來評估 YAHOO 的投資價值了。

-- Related posts:

1. YAHOO Q3 2009 Earnings Call
2. Why Yahoo dip dip dip
3. UGC 肥皂水
4. Microsoft Yahoo! 10 年合作案之有 insight 的片段
5. 本日佳句 – 15% 之怒

昨天看到一個很不錯的觀念：當遇到難題時，與其想破頭，不如動手動腳。

-- No related posts.