$20B crumbs

You think $20B is a lot of money. Think again.

$20B is the amount that VCs invest every year.

But where does the money come from?
The reality is that VC funds get their money from Limited Partners, for whom VC investment is considered "alternative investment". This means that it represents a very small fraction of their own portfolio. Something that they do not spend as much of their attention on.

And where does this lead us?
More and more people (including partners in VC funds) agree that something is broken with the VC model. But nobody is doing anything about it:
- The Limited Partners are happy with the people they work with, they have invested their money but even more important they have invested their trust in them. So if anything can be done, they trust that these partners will work on the issue to fix.
- And then the VCs do their best, they apply their expertise, they keep feeding the system with startups that they think will make a difference, and their view of fixing anything is to do more of same except better. Maybe they will widen the scope of their investment, or maybe get into other types of investments so that they can follow the startups throughout their lifecycle. But the one thing they will not do is question too far the system that feeds them, specially when it works good enough that they can make a good living out of it (who would do any different really?).

So in the end, the VC model, however broken people will agree it is, is here to stay for some time, and until somebody decides to deal with the crumbs.

What is interesting is that $20B is also the amount that Angels invest every year of smaller size deal. And again, where does the money come from?
Angel money is the "mad money", the spare change angels invest in startups so that they stay involve with innovation and entrepreneurship (the passion, the energy) while not having to do the hard work. A very precious help for entrepreneurs, but is it money well spent the way it is done today? I have discussed this in a previous post, and entrepreneurs are not getting as much help as they could hope from there either.

This is the challenge for the Entrepreneur Commons (tm), trying to find the Limited Partner or the Foundation that will decide to deal with these $20B crumbs...
If you are or know one of these, please contact me.

Of Executive Search 2.0, and Community Building in general

Hackers know this and you may too: the web is a great resource for Social Engineering.

One of the places where you can gather a lot of information on people, beyond the obvious social networks, are blogs.

And one of the great uses of this content is for Executive Search: digging through blogs, you can get a very good feel for what a person does, thinks. And since the blog typically include a link to a profile, you can also easily access the blogger to engage a conversation and see if they could be interested in switching to a new job.

The beauty with this model is that it gives you access to all these people who have the right skills for the position you are trying to fulfill but have not posted their resumes anywhere because they are not actively looking for a job. From my experience they also are the best candidates, the one who do great where they are but would consider a change.

The experts are blogging, it is time for the recruiters to read these blogs.

And if you are into building a community in any vertical the same applies: I am amazed to see the amount of content available on any given topic, and the number of people interested in this topic you can get to through their blog. The web is the social network, LinkedIn and Facebook (and the many others) are lenses through which you can visualize communities of professionals or friends or experts, and then you can create your own custom lens with a blog reader.

More info on VC funds - and it gets worse...

I have shared my own observations of the VC investment world and the Angel investment world in previous posts on this blog, leading to the Entrepreneur Commons project.
And I have now also found (thanks to my Melcion partners) a very interesting study that shows that in addition to not being a good answer for entrepreneurs, VC investment is also not a good solution for investors (the Limited Partners - LPs - in VC funds). A must-read for anybody interested in VC investment:

The Performance of Private Equity Funds, by Ludovic Phalippou and Oliver Gottschalg - April 2007.

The first striking information from this study of 1328 VCs worldwide is on the returns that can be expected from VC investment:

• S&P500 +3% before fees
  
• S&P500 -3% after the management fees (typically 1% or 2% plus carried interest)

So investors investing in VC funds will make less than market, their investment underperforming the market by 3% on average.

But it gests worse:
The original assumption in the study is that performance of VC funds is related to Size of the fund, Experience of the management team and Past Performance. However a closer study shows that when past performance is included in the equation all the other characteristics lose their significance: Past Performance appears to be the unique explanatory variable for fund performance.
More specifically, it seems that the fund performance after the first 3 to 4 years is the main indicator of the performance that can be expected from this fund at maturity (typically 9 years). Not experience, and not size. If you compare recently raised funds to what more mature funds were doing at the similar early stage, then the conclusion of the study is that new funds have similar expected performance as the mature funds in the study. Again, there is no concept of size and/or experience being a parameter.

What it means is that it does not matter whether the management team has experience from a previous fund, the only parameter that prevails is what they do in the first 3 to 4 years of a given fund, which will be the real indicator of what can be expected in the end.
So while the concept of track record is comforting psychologically, the science does not sustain the idea that it will make a difference.
In the end Limited Partners are playing the lottery when they invest in a new fund, whether it is with a newly formed team or an experienced team.

In summary:

• Each new fund is a new fund, with only what will happen in the first few years to determine what kind of results can be expected
• And in the end what can be expected is less than market by 3% on average

One question remains: why are LPs paying all these fees (the 6% that take their average returns from SP500+3% down to SP500-3%)?
If this is to play the lottery and get a chance to finance the next Google, be my guest. But if this is to finance innovation, maybe there are other options.

If anything, this is one more justification for trying other cheaper ways of financing entrepreneurs: back to the Entrepreneur Commons, it seems that while it originally came out of issues identified with Angel Investment as a way for Angel Investors to try something that may give them a better return on their investment, it is also a good answer for Limited Partners currently investing in VC funds, who could be also interested in the potential of better return on their investment while still staying involved in the financing of innovation.

If you are a LP, I would love to talk to you...

MFIs: where to go next

If you do not have time to read Muhammad Yunus book "Creating a world without poverty", I recommend this article from the Stanford Social Innovation Review:


This is what I got from the article:
- I like to think about these things in terms of ecosystems, where there needs to be a balance between all players. And therefore there should be a cap on the overall returns that an investor can get from micro-finance, and the goal should be to keep these rates at a max that would be close to typical average market returns (S&P for example). This guarantees sustainability from the investor prospective, they are not "losing" money when investing in MFIs, but at the same time higher returns should be not acceptable because then other parts of the ecosystem are getting squeezed. What the investor gets for his money is that he will not loose, and then he is contributing to helping the poor by choosing to invest in the right places instead of going for the usual suspects (oil and guns on the stock market to be extreme).
This is where there is good co-existence between the 2 worlds within the larger global ecosystem, because the markets provide a good benchmark for what is reasonable. Then the decision from the investor prospective becomes a choice between getting high returns from companies whose impact on the world is not considered, or reasonable returns from companies who also do good somehow. An analogy here is what Peer-to-peer lending (prosper.com for example) is doing today, where people decide what level of return they want from one person/project or another. The good news from what I have read is that borrowers tend to get better rates there than from regular loans, because investors value good credit more than a bank would, and they are happy to keep their return "reasonable" if it can help these "good" borrowers.

- Once this is established, I see MFIs being a platform as 2 things (what the article promotes):
-- a blueprint, with processes and governance that can be applied to other under-served areas. This is what I think the examples in the article talking about Grameen Healthcare and Grameen Renewable Energy are about. This is horizontal growth, getting into other "markets" where similar recipes can be applied.
-- and then each individual MFIs is its own platform in the sense that it is a social network of people who work together and share a chart of ethics (the glue between these people) that guarantees the success of their effort. This social network as a platform can be expanded from the original mission to fulfill other needs of the people within the group. Call it vertical growth, expanding from providing loans to providing insurance for example. This is where the reinvestment of profits above the reasonable rate of return come into play.

Clearly a good way to grow from where we are with Microfinance to a better world overall. And very much in sync with the Entrepreneur Commons project I have launched recently :-)

"Strategy and the Internet" revisited

In these times when economic trouble seems to be looming (did you hear about budget cuts and rising cost of gas?), and when the hype over the web20 revolution seem to have been another mini-bubble, it is interesting to go back to the basics. And a good place to look is this article "Strategy and the Internet" that Michael Porter wrote in the Harvard Business Review in March 2001. The lesson from the article is that we should not lose the focus on strategic development and competitive advantage. It was true then and it is true now. But in the light of what has happened since then, a few things should be added to the previous analysis.

Here are some exerts from the article:
>>
The great paradox of the Internet is that its very benefits –making information widely available; reducing the difficulty of purchasing, marketing, and distribution; allowing buyers and sellers to find and transact business with one another more easily–also make it more difficult for companies to capture those benefits as profits. (...) The openness of the Internet,with its common standards and protocols and its ease of navigation, makes it difficult for a single company to capture the benefits of a network effect. (...) In general, however, new Internet technologies will continue to erode profitability by shifting power to customers.
(...) As all companies come to embrace Internet technology, moreover, the Internet itself will be neutralized as a source of advantage. (...) Established companies will be most successful when they deploy Internet technology to reconfigure traditional activities or when they find new combinations of Internet and traditional approaches. (...) Only by integrating the Internet into overall strategy will this powerful new technology become an equally powerful force for competitive advantage.
<<

This remains true if you consider the Internet as a technology, which seem to be the "lens" Michael Porter used when writing his article. But I believe that we need to consider also that the Internet has become more than just a technology, it is now also about people, the famous social networks that appear everywhere and are today the next hot thing, the "ConsumActors" as Xavier Comtesse calls them.
When Michael Porter states that "new Internet technologies will continue to erode profitability by shifting power to customers", he was not taking into account (who could at the time?) the value that customers can add, the famous "user generated content" that can actually help boost profitability instead.

The good news is that in the end, we can all agree that the answer is that "only by integrating the Internet into overall strategy will this powerful new technology become an equally powerful force for competitive advantage".
And for this, Xavier Comtesse (see my previous posts about his work here and here) is offering us 2 very powerful tools:

• A matrix to understand a market or how to deploy a product strategy that includes customers in the value chain
• And now a Value Chain 2.0, to add on top of the "Prominent Applications of the Internet in the Value Chain" that Michael Porter show in his article

This latest document (Value Chain 2.0) is a great way to clarify how we should consider the management of the ecosystem, by including both internal and external resources into the equation, and by considering how the data+knowledge should shared as the main strategy driver: the company as the underlying platform supporting one large ecosystem rather than a fortress of employees interacting with customers and suppliers. If you had any doubt that there is no other choice than to do it, now is the time to take a look again. Thank you Xavier for clarifying all this for us...

The Entrepreneur Commons™

After looking at VCs, and after managing the European American Angel Club for 2 years now, I have come to the conclusion that entrepreneurs are not really being served properly when it comes to seed funding. And I would like therefore to propose the concept of an Entrepreneur Commons to help with the issue.

Here is the story:

I have seen are roughly 3 types of angels:

• The super-angel, who has enough money to be a one-man show VC playing with his own money (and maybe money from a few friends). Either he is known by the VC community, and he is treated well by them because he can source good deals for the later-stage rounds, or he has enough money within his ecosystem that he can help entrepreneurs all the way through.
  
• The social type, who has money and like toying with the idea that he could invest and may do so one day. He likes attending meetings and talking about it, but the reality is that he never really invests in anything.
• And then you have everybody else in between these 2 types.

These last group of angels is facing a lot of issues with the model as it is today:

• Angels their put money down and they have no clue when it will come back (if ever). Typical time before a cash event is 7 to 9 years if you believe angels who have done it for a while
• When investing in early stage, they have no real data to figure out a valuation, so any equity deal is based on arbitrary valuations where somebody is getting a bad deal on one side (angel) or the other (entrepreneur)
• If the business requires additional funding, Angels are being squeezed of the deals by VCs, who impose liquidation-preference clause
• And finally because you are just an Angel after all and not a fund, you are limited in your resources and cannot really spread yourself into a number of deals that is statistically relevant.
  

So in the end, they are playing the lottery, and they know it. And because they are playing the lottery, they want the reward to be as big as possible if they win, so they tend to shoot for companies with a potential for return of at least 10x the investment.

From the entrepreneur side, this leaves out of the system a whole lot of very good startups with very promising businesses but not "hot" enough. This is even more critical these days when you see an emergence of "social entrepreneurs" who are interested in making money, but whose focus (and measure of success) is also to help the community one way or another. They are not really non-profit, so most of the time they do not qualify for grants, but they are not the 10x type either. Meanwhile they clearly deserve help.

The way I see out of this situation is the Entrepreneur Commons:
A not-for-profit social network of entrepreneurs providing financing for early stage company through debt guaranteed by a mutual guarantee fund. The financial risk is mitigated by the mutual guarantee fund. The risk on the "management" side is mitigated by the social network: loans are by invitation only, so you will have to be approved by your peers to get in. And the typical scalability issue faced by general partners in a VC fund (which causes the famous "funding gap") is also resolved by the social network: the size of loans and the number of entrepreneurs involved is no longer a problem, and if anything it helps stabilize the results of the group as a whole.

The project is starting to get some traction, and we have been getting a lot of positive feedback - the recent post from my friend Jessica is a good example of the reactions I get.
The goal is now to confirm the blueprint for this model, so that it can be replicated anywhere. We have started looking for funds so that we can make loans soon. Stay tuned...

It's time for geeks to learn about design thinking

One thing about Web20 is that it has clearly brought us to a commoditization of services.
With open source tools and with the decreasing price of computers, it has become very easy and very cheap to build a service in a few weeks. Along with that is the fact that if you have an idea, chances are that someone else somewhere else has had or will have soon the same idea. It is very common to see similar ideas appear within a six months window in various places around the world.
Ideas are all over the place, technology is cheap: online services are just another consumer product.

So how will you make your idea/service stand in front of similar others? My take is it's all in the design of it.
Not design as in cute logo or a weird name that you hope people will remember, but design as in thorough analysis of what users expect and how to best present your service to them. We are talking user interface, thinking about design in anything that will be presented to the consumer, and thinking about how they will use the service to make it as easy as possible for them, including intuitive, pleasant, and efficient. The kind of things Apple did for smartphones with the iPhone, a beautiful demonstration of the power of design to other manufacturers who were focusing on functionality without wondering why very little of it was really usable when they were sticking to the computer metaphor and its ridiculously complex navigation on small screens.

If you are thinking, or in the process, of creating yet another web20 service (and we are just seeing the beginning of the services that web20/30 will bring about), you should consider very seriously investing in design before you do anything. Design thinking will help you confirm who your audience is, how and what you should communicate with them and them with you, making it a complete and coherent experience. And therefore it will help you fine tune the product/service you will create. Or in the worse case it may save you a lot of time and money by allowing you to discover sooner rather than later that your idea was not that great after all. Doing anything else is keeping closer to playing the lottery, and hoping blindly that users will like what you came up with. Some are lucky and win, most don't.

Think design!

Non-profit as another step into participative democracy

I attended last week a very interesting seminar at the Stanford Center for Social Innovation by the Stanford Social Innovation Review and FSG on Evaluation for Foundations: how Foundations should measure the results of what they do so that they can learn from the process.
I had always been thinking of non-profits and foundations as charity organizations picking up issues where the government would not or could not go: environment, social matters, etc...
What I had not realized is how this process can be used in a very proactive way to get things done and act where politicians seem to be unable to do anything. What foundations do, when it is proven to work, can and should be publicized and shared widely so that their impact goes beyond the point fixes to benefit the population at large.

A striking example of this was how Tom Siebel worked on the Meth issue in Montana with his Meth Project Foundation:
- The government approach was a typical law enforcement one, resulting in the filling up of jails (50% of adult population in Montana jails is related to the meth issue) and no real progress on the ground: despite this effort, meth consumption was on the rise and kids were not really aware of the dangers of using it, some even though it had beneficial effect on memory, the whole thing costing the State about $100M every year.
- Tom approach of the problem was a marketing one: Meth is a product, and consumers are consumers, therefore the best thing is to reach them as you would reach consumers, and give them the relevant information that will allow them to make an educated choice when it comes to buying and consuming. The results of the ad campaigns (TV, radio, press) and after $15M between 2005 and 2006 was a decline in Meth use in the work place by 70 percent, meth related crime has decreased 53%.
Beyond fixing the meth issue in Montana, what Tom did is that he made a very interesing point: he picked an issue, devided a plan to resolve it, worked out the kinks and documented the process and results, and he is now licensing the "platform" to other States so that they can resolve the issue themselves in other places.

This is very close to what Muhammad Yunus is pushing in his book "Creating a Worlds Without Poverty" in the concept: real things come from people who live in the real world, and so the best way up is to have non-profit collaborate with for profit while governments just provide the infrastructure within which all this can happen.

While business with Web20 is starting to include consumers into the value chain (wikipedia, delicious, digg, google maps edits, etc...) there is no questions in my mind that the same can happen with government processes, where citizens can have a lot more impact than they used to: it is all a question of the data you can access, and how you can document what is being done.

The answer is in the network

Just ran into something very interesting that is proving one year after it was written to be as predicted where social networking is going:
Rich Gordon is right: with the proliferation of social networks of all kinds what will make the difference for me is not which destination site you can attract me to, but rather which data you are able to send to me wherever I hangout. So forget Facebook (or not if this is where I am most of the time), just find where the right place/network is for me and talk to me there. The future belongs to those who have the right social engineering tools to do this.
And if you want to get into this, eCairn is a good place to start: www.ecairn.com

Future of small business forecast report released

Just released: the 3rd edition of the Future of Small Business report. It is called The New Artisan Economy. This was a joint effort by IFTF, Intuit and Emergent Research. The report and related materials are at: http://www.intuit.com/futureofsmallbusiness.

Politics within the Corporation - how bad things happen and nobody feels responsible

The lastest fiasco from Societe Generale is another good exemple of how the political game is played within the corporation:

- let's start by saying that the whole corporate system is conceived to promote people who do not take risk: taking a chance and trying things means taking a chance that it will not succeed, and when the time comes to select a candidate for the next level up, if you took a chance and it did not work, you will be eliminated in favor of the guy with the perfect track record, the guy who did not take a chance.
Granted this is not the complete picture because you also need to ride the various hypes as they come, so that you are always seen at the right place at the right time even though you are not doing anything (the beauty of delegation and getting credits for what your reports do right)

- In such an environment doing nothing also means letting your reports do things that may not be 100% ethical as long as you can maintain an ability to claim ignorance. If the results are good, you will benefit from it, and if the results are bad, you can always join the chorus and protest at the discovery of the facts.
Nobody is fundamentally bad, but it is human to do things that benefit you as long as you know (or think) that there will be no serious consequences to your actions. And not everybody has the same level of tolerance when it comes to evaluating the acceptable from the bad.

- In the end, the dilution of responsibility is built into the system, and it becomes very easy for everybody to never feel really responsible for what is happening. And this is how you get the Enrons, Societe Generale and many other stories that don't always make it to the front page of the International Press.

I worked for many years in this type of environment, I have seen it happen at a small scale, and from where I am today I still do see it happen at a much larger scale in some corporations.

Now: why do we let these things happen? This is the power of status quo: when issues pop up, the press makes a lot of noise and a few bad people are punished, and maybe the corporation is shut down, but who cares if this is not really affecting me. Or is it? But then who am I to make a difference?
The very sad thing about all this is that when the large corporation loses, the real losers are the little guys who have their retirement in mutual funds.
Should we care about these little guys?

Something becomes wrong with Corporations when the entrepreneur who started them disappear behind investors or even worse behind a multitude of public stock holders who do not really have much details (and much less control) on what these corporation are doing! Back to my previous post, let's hope that the changes brought by Social Networking and Peer-to-peer collaboration will bring us better systems to organize how we work together...

Open Business: a world of guilds

Social Networks made a big splash, and we are still trying to recover from the hype (where is Facebook going?). But while it is nice to share pictures and videos, this is not much more than entertainment and another cool way to waste time.

Meanwhile I also see the workforce getting organized and social networks with a purpose. There was the grassroot movement during the previous presidential election, the voting machine incident with Diebold against a network of activists as described by Yochai Benkler in "The Wealth of Networks". And all this is now getting corporate: I watched the coworking movement start in San Francisco and expand all over the Globe, I see efforts at the infrastructure level, such as FON, and I see discussions around social networks of business development consultants, CFOs, developers, designers, tech support experts, etc... Soon you will be able to do business by just getting resources from the relevant network. You will pick them from each other based on their rating, how far they are from people in your direct network and how much they cost.

Michel Bauwens talks about P2P civilization and Xavier Comtesse talks about Direct Economy (and even Direct Anything)
I see the emergence of a world of guilds of specialists, similar to the ecosystems that John Seely Brown describes in his book "The Only Sustainable Edge".

Ultimately, I see a lot of opportunities: if this is where we are going, what else do we need to make the guilds system completely functional?

Web30: Xavier Comtesse was right

While "semantic web" is a very confusing name, and web30 will tell you nothing, I finally got a better understanding of what this is about (sorry if I am a bit slow) when I read the Semantic Wave 2008 Report from project10x.

And I realized that the matrix presented by Xavier Comtesse one year ago (see my previous post on this) is a very good lens that helps figure out what this is going on:

Xavier's matrix looks at 2 axis:
1- Knowledge
-- raw data
-- data with context
-- data with context over time that leads to
-- modelisation and then to
-- forecast

2- User involvement in the value chain:
-- receive info
-- pick and choose (self service)
-- customize (Do-it-yourself)
-- co-design
-- co-creation

From what I see, web10 was about getting raw data on the web, and providing tools to pick and choose. Web20 was about connecting people. Now ajax, mashups, geotagging (connecting intelligence) are giving people the ability to customize how the data is delivered to them (do-it-yourself), and so what is coming next becomes fairly obvious when you look at the matrix. What worked to explain the success of eTrade also works at the macro level to explain what is happening.

If you haven't read this yet, I recommend you look at what Xavier presents: http://thinkstudio.com/text/directeconomy_slides.pdf

The web as an education tool for the next elections

I just ran into a very interesting website, still beta but something worth looking out:
Check out http://www.select2008.com.

The service helps users select their top candidates for the US Presidential Election by answering 20-30 questions. We use advanced analytics to ask the most relevant and selective questions to zero in on your top candidate, from a database of over 1,500 questions on policy and programs. It is both fun and enlightening.

You can view your results at any time in the process and compare how much in agreement you are with candidates on all types of issues, such as the war in Iraq , healthcare, taxes, social issues, etc. You can also register and then compare your results with your friends. The site should be integrated with Facebook shortly.

Isn't the web a beautiful tool?

Venture Capital: the truth behind the myth

After spending quite some time helping entrepreneurs, I am know convinced that the VC model has evolved to a point where it is starting to die from too much success, creating another bubble in its own world:

- Too much money, too little time, resulting in smart people being hired to track the deals, but who have no clue what entrepreneurship is about and spend too much time in spreadsheets. Not a good recipe for success.

- Too much money resulting in a funding gap getting bigger and bigger: in 2006 the average initial investment from VC firms went from 5.9M$ to 6.2M$, and VC firms only invested in 700 "seed and early stage" deals, while angels invested in about 50,000 of these. Big money, later stage deals also means that the return are going to be less, how often can you expect a 10x from a C series investment?

- And beyond the returns on one deal or another, the results overall are not that great: VCs themselves will tell you that out of 10 deals 4 will die, 3 will do so-so and only 3 will do ok to very good. But even worse, the rest of the world will confirm that something is wrong: if you take a look at the Inc magazine top 500 companies, in 2006 only 7% of these were funded by VCs or private equity. So it means that 93% of the fastest growing companies were not part (did not get in or fell out of) of the famous and so well advertised VC process - VCs have been missing something.

- Even VCs are getting tired: raising funds is getting more difficult, and the business is getting very tedious, getting away from the passion of entrepreneurship (what I believe the "old school VCs" were about) and into a more austere financial world (the smart but arrogant MBA with no clue about what is happening in the trenches)

So what next?

- While VCs seem to be lost, the angel community is thriving: about the same dollar amount as done by VCs is invested by angels each year, but it is done by 250,000 to 300,000 individuals investing in many more deals at much smaller amounts. The good news is that if I go back to my 93% of the Inc top 500 companies, the average initial startup capital for these companies was $75K. So it seems angel investment is the right place to be. And these angels are now getting organized into angel groups to spread risk and help scale (sharing the work of screening, due diligence etc...), and they are starting themselves to raise funds (typically from individuals) to increase their reach if needed.

- Angels are getting the good deals: while I have no numbers on this, I have heard VCs tell me that their best deals were referred by angels rather than by other VCs. And I see now VC firms trying to get back into the early stage through scheme such as Charles River Venture Quickstart program, or YCombinator.

- So while it is easier and more sexy for the press to keep talking about the successes of famous VCs (Stories about Yahoo, Google, Skype and who's next?), the real work of value creation is being done somewhere else.

- Beyond the investment aspect, I think the key to success is that we are talking about individuals who are often time contributing their experience directly into the business, mentoring the entrepreneur through his/her own venture. People investing in people, something that looks like the P2P work we see happening in the Open source community, but applied to entrepreneurship. My bet is that this is where the future is...

PS: thank you to my partners Jean-Xtophe and Alberto at Melcion Chassagne et Cie for some of the homework on numbers

Pipl.com

Thank you to my friend Erik for pointing out pipl.com. Yet another people search engine, but with a better UI than what I have seen until now, and an impressive coverage. I was able to find my French friends in there. Scary thing to see how exposed we are - we know that there is no privacy on the internet, but it is always a lesson to see how true it is...

Quickeo is getting visibility

An article in a French magazine on Quickeo: http://www.lexpansion.com/art/32.0.161330.0.html
The service is getting momentum :-)
The hard part for this service is that it is not for geeks, but for the mass of non-geek users who still need an easy solution to share their pictures and videos, and still rely on email rather than hyped websites to do so. And these people are not as easy to find as your average geek, because they do not hang around the web as much. Slowly but surely Quickeo is getting to them, so stay tuned...

Forget Skype, GizmoProject rules

Just came back from a few days off to find that Skype had taken over my machine and would not give it back to me. After the poor performance Skype had a few weeks ago, for which they sent an apology and a credit of a few days for the "Skype Pro" user, I now discover that Skype is using my bandwidth and my CPU when I am not around, and keeps it when I come back. My machine was slow, and my CPU running at 90% for Skype. I understand that they would do that when I am not using the PC, but if it keeps creeping down the system when I am using it, then I have a problem.
Meanwhile GizmoProject quality of calls is just as good if not better, and it is built on an open system, using SIP numbers that can be used across network. If I needed something to convince me to switch this is it, I am now a GizmoProject user. You can find me there at the same ID.

Vator.tv - a new way to do PR for your business

It is now possible for companies to upload a video version of their PR pitch on Vator.tv. A great concept with many opportunities: for investors to save time when looking for deals, for entrepreneurs to showcase themselves in yet another setting.
I have tried the process for Quickeo and it is pretty cool...

Quickeo viewer has been updated to support blogs better

In the album url provided from the Quickeo client (in the Manage screen, click on the URL tab on the right side of the screen), all you need to do is replace www.quickeo.net/qViewer/qViewer.php?key=blabla by www.quickeo.net/qViewer/qViewer4b.php?key=blabla, and add the option scrolling='no'

We will work on something more user friendly in the future, but at least it can be done now :-)