Archive for July 13th, 2008

engineyard-logo.pngEngine Yard, a platform to build, manage and host Rails applications, raised a $15 million Series B round of funding from new investors New Enterprise Associates and Amazon. Previous investor Benchmark Capital also participated - Engine Yard has now raised $18.5 million in capital.

Engine Yard competitors Heroku and New Relic have also raised capital this year.

Amazon’s investment is clearly strategic as it expands its own web services products. Engine Yard fits nicely into Amazon’s big picture plans for application tools, hosting and management.

Engine Yard Aim For Java With RubyOnRails Platform - Read More On TechcrunchIT >>

Crunch Network: CrunchBoard because it’s time for you to find a new Job2.0

Source: TechCrunch
Original Article: http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/334780334/

Jason Calacanis’ First New Email Post

Written by on Sunday, July 13th, 2008 in Uncategorized.

Jason Calacanis announced on Friday that he was retiring from blogging. There was a very mixed reaction to the news, with most believing it to be a publicity stunt. Jason said in his farewell post that instead of blogging, he would instead be posting to a mailing list made up of his followers, capped at 750 subscribers. That subscriber limit was reached very quickly, and today Jason sent out his first new ‘post’ to that mailing list, which we have included below.

We expect that moving his posts to a mailing list will not achieve what he has set out for - and that is to have a conversation with the top slice of his readers. Instead, you will likely see his emails re-published, probably on a blog and probably with comments and everything else.

> From: “Jason Calacanis”
> Date: July 13, 2008 11:16:15 AM PDT
> To: jason@binhost.com
> Subject: [Jason] The fallout (from the load out)
>
> Brentwood, California
> Sunday, July 12th 11:10AM PST.
> Word Count: 1,588
> Jason’s List Subscriber Count: 1,095
> List: http://tinyurl.com/jasonslist
>
> Team Jason,
>
> Wow, it’s been an amazing 24 hours since I officially announced my
> retirement from blogging ( http://tinyurl.com/jasonretires ). As
> you’ve probably seen there has been some of coverage of my retirement,
> most of it wondering if I’m joking or not (links at the bottom). To
> those who know me better than a couple of Valleywag headlines, am I
> ever not joking??!? I mean, Clark Kent asked a question in the faux
> Q&A session, I posted a photo of Michael Jordan’s retirement, and I
> spoke about spending more time with my family (as in my wife and two
> bulldogs).
>
> Clearly I was joking in the post, but I’m dead serious about the
> retirement from blogging.
>

> Most folks have no tolerance for ambiguity, and when faced with it are
> extremely uncomfortable. This lack of comfort makes them think, and my
> goal with the blog was always to challenge people’s thinking–most of
> all my own. Confusion is attention of the best kind–I long to be
> confused. I’ve become addicted to playing poker because your
> constantly faced with confusion, and winning is trying to make sense
> out of nonsense.
>
>
> Is blogging dead?
> ————————-
> Yes, it is. Officially. -)
>
> Actually, I’ve been thinking about this question and while blogging is
> clearly booming, there has been a deep qualitative change in the
> nature of the ’sphere. There are so many folks involved in blogging to
> today, and it’s moving at a much quicker pace thanks to “social
> accelerants” like TechMeme, digg, Friendfeed and Twitter. Folks are so
> desperate to be heard–and we all want to be heard that’s why we
> blog–that the effort put into being heard has eclipsed the actual
> hearing.
>
> Bloggers spend more time digging, tweeting, and SEOing their posts
> than they do on the posts themselves. In the early days of blogging
> Peter Rojas, who was my blog professor, told me what was required to
> win at blogging: “show up every day.” In 2003 and 2004 that was the
> case. Today? What’s required is a team of social marketers to get your
> message out there, and a second one to manage the fall-out from
> whatever you’ve said.
>
> Think: Nick Denton has reworked the bloggers pay at Gawker Media to
> reflect not the quality of the words but the number of page views
> those blog posts get. He doesn’t pay by word count, he pays by page
> views. He’s closed the loop between editorial and advertising, turning
> the Chinese wall into a block party. It’s the publishing promised land
> while simultaneously being the death of publishing. Gawker is growing
> page views while simultaneously destroying it’s brand equity. This
> will either result in an implosion, or the perfect id-driven magazine
> where our core desires are synchronized in relation to their
> marketability. It will be fun to watch, but I wouldn’t want to be one
> of those bloggers in the cage, running on the Denton’s wheel.
>
> Excelling in blogging today is about link-baiting, the act of writing
> something inflammatory in order to get a link. Many folks say I’m
> responsible for link-baiting–these people are absolute idiots. I’ve
> never tried to get any of these insecure, lonely freaks to link to
> something I’ve said. -)
>
> Truth be told, I’ve always written the way I talk–honestly and
> without a filter. John Brockman explained to me at one time that some
> of the most interesting folks he’s met have, over time, become less
> vocal. He explained, that there was a inverse correlation between your
> success and your ability to tell the truth. When I met John I was
> nobody and I promised myself I would never, ever censor myself if I
> become successful. My friend, and one of the few folks I’d consider a
> mentor, Mark Cuban laid a path for me to follow in this regard. I wish
> I could say I’ve succeeded, the best I can say is I’ve tried.
>
> My good friend Xeni Jardin, who I had the pleasure of working/playing
> with for a couple of years in another life, faced massive assault from
> the audience she herself built at Boingboing.net. These folks were not
> attacking her because of what she did (she deleted some old posts for
> personal reasons), they were attacking her because they could. They
> were attacking her because open-media (i.e. blogging) has turned into
> an excuse for bad behavior. It’s outrageous to think that an audience
> would turn on the author they love and built up for years over
> something so trivial as deleting some posts.
>
> Then again, they booed Dylan when he went electric in Newport and all
> along his tour of Europe. They called him Judas, but he didn’t believe
> them. I hope Xeni doesn’t believe them–they’re liars.
>
>
> Why email?
> ——————–
> In a word, intimacy. This message will go from my inbox to your inbox,
> perhaps from my Blackberry to your iPhone. From my sleepy garden
> office in Brentwood to your laptop perched on a desk in some high-rise
> hotel in Shanghai or your crummy little studio on the LES. I’m
> stopping my day to write it, and you’ll stop your day to read
> it–perhaps. Maybe you’ll save this, or forward it to some friends
> with certain sections in bold. There is zero tolerance for waste in
> personal communication, so if you don’t find value in this email
> you’ll delete it and maybe remove yourself from the list. You would do
> the same if someone started boring you at a cocktail party, no? Find a
> graceful way to get the hell out of there, and in email it’s one
> click.
>
> This platform puts a level playing field between us that is so
> different than me posting to my blog which gets swept up in the Google
> and Yahoo machine, sending thousands of visitors who haven’t made the
> email commitment.
>
> Also, there is an immediacy to this. At any point you can hit the
> reply key (or forward) and send your thoughts directly to me at
> jason@calacanis.com. This is much different than you posting to my
> comments section and subjecting yourself to the trolls and haters who
> have taken up residency there.
>
> Why should we all build our homes and give residence to the trolls
> under them? Comments on blogs inevitably implode, and we all accept it
> under the belief that “open is better!” Open is not better. Running a
> blog is like letting a virtuoso play for 90 minutes are Carnegie Hall,
> and then seconds after their performance you run to the back Alley and
> grab the most inebriated homeless person drag them on stage and ask
> them what they think of the performance they overheard in the Alley.
> They then take a piss on the stage and say “F-you” to the people who
> just had a wonderful experience for 90 or 92 minutes. That’s openness
> for you… my how far we’ve come! We’ve put the wisdom of the deranged
> on the same level as the wisdom of the wise.
>
> You and I now have a direct relationship, and I’m cutting the mailing
> list off today so it stays at ~1,000 folks. I’ll add selectively to
> the list, but for now I’m more interested in a deep relationship with
> the few of you have chosen to make a commitment with me. Perhaps some
> of you will become deep, considered colleagues and friends–something
> that doesn’t happen for me in the blogosphere any more.
>
> Much of my inspiration for doing this comes from what I’ve seen with
> John Brockman’s Edge.org email newsletter. When it enters my inbox I’m
> inspired and focused. I print it, and I don’t print anything. The
> people that surround him are epic, and that’s my inspiration–to be
> surrounded by exceptional people.
>
>
> The Feedback
> ———————-
> Ted Leonsis, another mentor to me over the years, thinks I’m pulling a
> Brett Favre. Perhaps. Background: Ted is responsible for Weblogs, Inc.
> being bought by AOL, and he spoke at the *first* event I ever did
> called “Meet the Alley” in 1997. The event took place at Pseudo.com
> and the air conditioner broke. It was August, and it was 100 degrees.
> Ted went on and gave an amazing talk. When Ted spoke about content on
> the Internet back in 94-96 time frame I was 23 years old and I knew
> what I wanted to do with my life: I wanted to be Ted. Weblogs, Inc.
> was version of his AOL Greenhouse, and Mahalo is a souped up version
> of AOL. http://www.tedstake.com/?p=2504
>
> Sarah Lacy says blogging is at a cross-roads and she gets where I’m
> coming from. I’ve known Sarah for a couple of years now, and she’s
> become a personality on the Web 2.0 circuit thanks to her book “Once
> You’re Lucky, Twice Your Good,” a book in which I get very few
> mentions (not that I’m counting them.. 384, really? :-). She too has
> felt the harsh mob mentality, also known as “the wisdom of the
> crowds.” For the record, crowds are really frackin’ stupid and to put
> your stock in crowds is about as bright as putting your faith in a
> dictator–they’ll love you for as long as they feel like it, then
> they’ll ripe you apart without mercy. Also, has anyone else noticed
> that women like Sarah and Xeni get treated 10x as harsh as men do in
> the blogosphere? Another reason to opt out.
> http://tinyurl.com/6fz4qd
>
> SarahinTampa.com says: “It’s like he hit the nail on the head of
> everything that’s wrong with blogging today…at least for me.”
> http://tinyurl.com/56f3f6
>
> A bunch of other folks have commented on the story, and you can see
> their reactions on TechMeme:
> http://www.techmeme.com/080712/p14#a080712p14
>
> Jim Kukal says it’s the death of the A-list:
> http://www.jimkukral.com/the-death-of-the-a-list/
>
> Scoble says it’s a farce:
> http://tinyurl.com/62n649
>
> All the best,
>
> Jason
> _______________________________________________
> Jason mailing list
> Jason@binhost.com
> https://my.binhost.com/lists/listinfo/jason

Crunch Network: MobileCrunch Mobile Gadgets and Applications, Delivered Daily.

Source: TechCrunch
Original Article: http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/334564421/

2007 was the year of speculation of a Google Phone, or Gphone. Handset manufacturer HTC was the center of attention around most of the rumors. But Google eventually squashed those rumors by announcing the Open Handset Alliance and Android. Instead of building an iPhone like device and service combined, they’d be backing an open source mobile operating system that could finally break the carriers’ stranglehold on the mobile market.

Android doesn’t preclude Google from creating their own mobile device as well though, that will work as a best of breed device. Google has never said they wouldn’t build their own phone exactly, but when they wrote last November that they were not announcing a Gphone at that time, most of the speculation died down.

But today Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergei Brin and CEO Eric Schmidt made nebulous statements that are leaving us wondering if Google is now thinking of building that gPhone: “The trio of Google execs also used the opportunity to talk about the inroads the company is making with its own branded mobile phone as a replacement for the iPhone.”

As Om Malik notes, this isn’t a direct quote but rather a summary of what was said by Hollywood Reporter writer Dan Cox. But a “branded mobile phone” is very different than Google’s Android project. Unless Cox got the summary wrong, the statements were significant.

And there’s more - we’ve been tracking a story recently that San Francisco based Ammunition Design Group, which has designed computers, mobile phones, hardware, and other devices for companies like Palm, Hewlett-Packard, Dell Computer, and Logitech, may be working with Google to create an Android-based, Google branded Gphone. Founder Robert Brunner was previously the Director of Industrial Design at Apple Computer until 1997, where he provided design and direction for all Apple product lines.

The image above is a phone that Ammunition Group designed for Sprint and is shown on their website.

This all may be nothing, but we’ve got a good source swearing that Ammunition Group is designing the Gphone and that it is a seriously beautiful device. We’ve moved this story from the back burner into high gear, we’ll see what we come up with as we dig.

Crunch Network: MobileCrunch Mobile Gadgets and Applications, Delivered Daily.

Source: TechCrunch
Original Article: http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/334123779/

New Microsoft Offer, Quickly Rejected

Written by on Sunday, July 13th, 2008 in Uncategorized.

Yahoo rejected a new Microsoft offer to acquire Yahoo’s search business earlier this evening. The offer, which apparently was made on Friday in cooperation with Yahoo investor Carl Icahn, was a variation on Microsoft’s previous offer to acquire Yahoo’s search business in exchange for cash, a partial stock buyout and revenue guarantees, required the complete replacement of the Yahoo board and executive management team, had a 24 hour expiration period and stated that there was no room for negotiation.

Yahoo rejected it, saying that the Google search deal they’ve signed is a better deal and adding that the requirement to replace the board and executive team is “absurd and irresponsible given the complexity of the deal.” We, by the way, agree with both points.

Yahoo formally offered to sell itself whole to Microsoft in the release as well, saying “the Board believes a whole company transaction could be negotiated and executed prior to August 1st,” and suggesting Microsoft’s original $33 offer will work just fine for them right now.

Full text of release:


Yahoo! Rejects Microsoft/Icahn Search and Restructuring Proposal
Yahoo! Suggests Microsoft Make A Proposal To Acquire Whole Company

SUNNYVALE, Calif., Jul 12, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) — Yahoo! Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO), a leading global Internet company, confirmed today that it has rejected a joint proposal from Microsoft Corporation and Carl Icahn for a complex restructuring of Yahoo! that would include the acquisition of Yahoo!’s search business by Microsoft.

The proposal was made on Friday evening and Yahoo! was given less than 24 hours to accept the proposal, the fundamental terms of which Microsoft and Mr. Icahn made clear they were unwilling to negotiate. After reviewing the proposal with its legal and financial advisers, Yahoo!’s Board of Directors determined that accepting the proposal is not in the best interests of its stockholders.

The Board’s rejection of the proposal was based on a number of factors, including the following:

1. Yahoo!’s existing business plus its recently signed commercial agreement with Google has superior financial value and less complexity and risk than the Microsoft/Icahn proposal.

2. The Microsoft/Icahn proposal would preclude a potential sale of all of Yahoo! for a full and fair price, including a control premium.

3. The major component of the overall value per share asserted by Microsoft/Icahn would be in Yahoo!’s remaining non-search businesses which would be overseen by Mr. Icahn’s slate of directors, which has virtually no working knowledge of Yahoo!’s businesses.

4. The Microsoft/Icahn proposal would require the immediate replacement of the current Board and removal of the top management team at Yahoo!. The Yahoo! Board believes these moves would destabilize Yahoo! for the up to the one year it would take to gain regulatory approval for this deal.

Roy Bostock, Chairman of Yahoo! said, “This odd and opportunistic alliance of Microsoft and Carl Icahn has anything but the interests of Yahoo!’s stockholders in mind. Clearly, Microsoft, having failed to advance in search, is aligning with the short-term objectives of Mr. Icahn to coerce Yahoo! into selling its core strategic search assets on terms that are highly advantageous to Microsoft, but disadvantageous to Yahoo! stockholders. Yahoo’s Board of Directors will not allow that to happen. Yahoo!’s Board remains open to any transaction that delivers full value to our stockholders - we just do not believe such a transaction should be dictated by Microsoft and a single short-term investor.”

Mr. Bostock continued, “After negotiating among themselves without the involvement of Yahoo!, Carl Icahn and Microsoft presented us with a ‘take it or leave it’ proposal under which we would be required to restructure the Company, hand over to Microsoft Yahoo!’s valuable search business and to Carl Icahn the rest of the Company, giving us less than 24 hours to respond. It is ludicrous to think that our Board could accept such a proposal. While this type of erratic and unpredictable behavior is consistent with what we have come to expect from Microsoft, we will not be bludgeoned into a transaction that is not in the best interests of our stockholders.”

Mr. Bostock also noted that Microsoft’s position that it would not deal with, or otherwise engage with, Yahoo!’s management to reach agreement on this proposal or to implement it, is completely absurd and irresponsible given the complexity of the deal - one that requires the removal of half of Yahoo!’s business from Yahoo! and then the integration of it into Microsoft.

Yahoo!’s Board points out that a transaction to acquire the whole company would be much more straightforward and involve far less risk than the new proposal or any similar alternative. The Board believes a whole company transaction could be negotiated and executed prior to August 1st. In rejecting the Microsoft/Icahn proposal, Yahoo! not only repeated its offer to sell the entire Company to Microsoft for at least $33 per share, but also offered to negotiate an improved search only transaction. Microsoft rejected both offers.

Ironically, Carl Icahn, who jointly with Microsoft developed and presented this proposal, had previously urged Yahoo! not to sell its search business to Microsoft. Specifically, in an interview on CNBC’s Fast Money program, on June 4, 2008, Mr. Icahn said, “… it’s crazy for this company now to do this alternative deal and give the store away, because obviously, an alternative deal is a poison pill because once you’ve done an alternative deal and given the search to Microsoft, you don’t need Microsoft to buy you anymore. So, that would be a poison pill….”

Significantly, the Board believes Microsoft and Mr. Icahn are overstating the value their search and restructuring proposal would deliver to Yahoo! stockholders and are substantially understating the risks. Yahoo! noted that a transaction that would separate the Company’s search and display businesses is an undertaking of great complexity. While the Board acknowledges that the current proposal contains a number of improvements over Microsoft’s earlier proposal, the Yahoo! Board’s conclusion that the current proposal is not in the best interests of stockholders is based on a number of factors, including:

– The revenue guarantees suggested, which are conditional and subject to reduction, are well below the search revenue that the Company is expected to generate on its own and in association with its announced commercial agreement with Google. That agreement alone is estimated to generate $250 to $450 million of incremental cash flow for the first twelve months following implementation, while allowing Yahoo! to remain a principal in paid search;

– The success of the remaining Company is critically dependent on Microsoft’s ability to effectively monetize search;

– Microsoft/Icahn’s proposed Traffic Acquisition Costs rates are below market;

– The proposal calls for Yahoo! to sell its industry-leading algorithmic search business and its related strategic and valuable intellectual property portfolio for no incremental consideration; and

– Many of the components of the headline value that Mr. Icahn and Microsoft put forward, such as the spin-off of the Yahoo!’s Asian assets and the return of cash to stockholders, are steps that could be taken by Yahoo! on its own and the Board continues to evaluate these options.

Mr. Bostock concluded, “Microsoft and Mr. Icahn are trying to dismantle the Company and deliver our search business to Microsoft on terms that would be disadvantageous to Yahoo! stockholders. We are prepared to let our stockholders, not Microsoft and Carl Icahn, decide what is in their best interests and we look forward to the upcoming vote.”

Crunch Network: MobileCrunch Mobile Gadgets and Applications, Delivered Daily.

Source: TechCrunch
Original Article: http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/334036563/



Site Navigation