Angry Professor

I'm currently teaching a VB.net course at Varsity College. This is for one of my students... ;-)

Web 2.0 must Grow Up

In the beginning I thought all things Web 2.0 was really cool.

All of a sudden you could do everything from word processing to spreadsheets inside a browser, rather than having to install any applications on your computer. I really love applications such as Writely, Basecamp, Gmail, Google Maps, ZOHO Creator and others.

But the novelty started wearing off pretty quickly when hundreds of web companies started getting onto the Web 2.0 craze. If you want a Web 2.0 word processor, you can now choose from Writely, Writeboards, ZOHO Writer, Rallypoint and Jotspot to name a few.

It seems the rule of thumb for web companies is to take an existing desktop application and simply port it to a web browser using AJAX.

An interesting exception to this is Meebo. Meebo is a Web 2.0 instant messenger application that rolls together AIM, Yahoo IM, ICQ, MSN messenger and GChat into a single, browser-based chat client.

So far it's the same old formula. What makes Meebo interesting though is the fact that they keep doing new things with Instant Messaging that weren't possible in a Web 1.0 world, such as MeeboMe. (See the review TechCrunch. You can also use the Yeah!Fi LIVE CHAT widget right here, unless you're reading this through an RSS feed)

When film first became popular, many theatre companies performed popular plays and recorded the performances on film. But film was a new medium that made new things possible. Imagine all movies today were simply plays being captured on film?

That's exactly what is currently happening with Web 2.0!

We need more companies like Meebo to show us that a lot more is possible when you embrace a new medium and its possibilities, rather than simply regurgitating old 'plays' onto a new format.

'Not Invented Here' Syndrome

In the last year or so I've often approached ICT companies and small ISPs to talk to them about Skyrove. Although many simply 'got it', I often received resistance from others, mostly about some or other bizarre feature request or they'll tell me that they're planning to do the same development but of course it will be better. I would often leave such meetings stunned that these bright people couldn't see my proposal for the 'no-brainer' it is.

I was stunned once again by the controversy that sprang up over a statement made by Esther Dyson when she visited South Africa.

From ITWeb:

Esther Dyson, chairperson of venture capitalist firm EDventure Holdings and a member of the Presidential Advisory Council, added that consumers needed to be entrepreneurial by buying and reselling broadband.

“Though there was a sense of urgency on the behalf of the government, competition must come from the customer,” she noted.

Esther probably had Fon in mind when she made this statement. Like Skyrove, Fon allows folks to easily share their internet using a Wi-Fi router, but with a different payment model. (Per MB vs. Per Day) I spoke to the brilliant Robert Lang at Fon a few weeks ago who said, quite correctly, that South Africa wasn't ready for the Fon model, where we pay as much as $36 dollars for each GB we use.

Unfortunately, Esther's suggestion wasn't too well received. The most common objection being that it is a) not practicable (it is if you're using Skyrove) and b) illegal (also not true).

Perhaps it was just a matter of South Africans not wanting to follow some sage advice from an imported visionary such as Esther Dyson.

Geoff Hainebach, who was formerly CEO at Siemens Telecomms SA, explained it to me as the 'NIH' (Not Invented Here) phenonemon.

From Wikipedia:

"In many cases, Not Invented Here occurs as a result of simple ignorance, as many companies simply never do the research to know whether a solution already exists. Also common, however, are deliberate cases where the organization's staff rejects a known solution because they don't take the time to understand it fully before rejecting it;"

As a result of Esther's efforts, the government & DoC (Department of Communications) is now saying: "It's OK to share your broadband with Wi-Fi" (Read about it on Esther's blog)

This is a major milestone! Thanks Esther for being 'a bit of a troublemaker'.

Henk

p.s. Also see Jarred Cinman's blog for an alternative viewpoint.

Flatrate Schmatrate

Many people want flatrate internet in South Africa where we pay about $36 US for each GB we use. Flatrate broadband is being offered by the likes of IS; at a price. (about $300 US per month, with high latencies and restrictions on P2P)

Imagine the following scenario. You and your mate go to the local shopping mall. He buys a pair of sneakers, a new DVD player, a present for his girlfriend and 3 books at the bookstore. You buy some new socks.

Both of you pay a flatrate of $500 per month for your shopping mall "subscription". I.e. you've just subsidized everything your mate bought. Do you think consumers and shopowners would buy into this concept of shopping mall subscriptions? Of course not!

So why on earth would you want flatrate internet, where the majority of users are subsidizing the excesses of a minority?

It used to be that the internet was about reading emails and surfing the web. These days it's about VoIP, IPTV, streaming audio, podcasts, YouTube and Web 2.0 applications. One person could be getting a lot more value out of an hour on the net than another!

It makes sense to me that the more you 'buy' at this new 'shopping mall', the more you should pay. Of course you should qualify for bulk discounts, but why a flat rate for unlimited usage?

I envisage a world in which everyone is online all the time. There's simply no point in charging for the time you are online. You'll be online from birth. Therefore, Skyrove charges per Megabyte. It's a natural differentiator.

There's a pretty much direct correlation between the value-add of most online services you use and the amount of bandwidth it consumes. Web 2.0 apps use more bandwidth than surfing, VoIP uses more bandwidth than Web 2.0, video uses more bandwidth than VoIP etc.

One of the main reasons we are given is that consumers simply don't understand the concept of MB. The sooner internet operators realise that consumers aren't idiots and that "Megabyte Education" isn't impossible, the sooner we're going to see more affordable internet access.

Gmail has a Daily Quota

I discovered to shock & horror that Gmail wouldn't send any more mails today! Apparently I exceeded my 'daily sending quota'.

Background: This morning I sent out an email to all 270 Skyrove Hotspot Providers. I had all the email addresses in a CSV file and used a Macro to put them onto one line, in the format "x@x.com", "y@y.com","z@z.com" etc.

It seems Gmail couldn't handle the fact that there were inverted commas around the email addresses, so I received 270 'Mail Delivery Subsystem' replies... I removed all inverted commas so the emails now read: x@x.com, y@y.com, z@z.com and sent the email.

Everything went through fine. Then, as I was trying to reply to an email in my inbox, it simply wouldn't send. No message either. So I tried composing a new message. This time it said "You have reached a limit for sending mail"

Clicking on Learn More tells me that "Gmail has a number of sending limits in place to prevent abuse of our system, and to help fight spam. Common causes include: 1. Sending a message to more than 500 recipients... 2. Sending a large number of undeliverable messages. We suggest verifying your contacts' email addresses."

Considering it was a parse error on Gmail's part (I'm sure some programmers will cause it a parse 'feature') I'm pretty riled up about it right now.

Furthermore, we've moved over to 'Gmail for your domain' so there's no other way I can send emails from my Skyrove account...

VCs! Watch out for them hemorrhoids!

I'm really proud to say that last week Skyrove won the Technology Top 100 award for the 'Most Promising Emerging Enterprise'!

In addition, we were also chosen to go to Berlin in October this year to present to investors at the European Venture Market. (Email me if you'd like to meet up!)

Click here to read the recent ITWeb article on the TT100 Awards.

I was still feeling proud and pompous the next day when Tai Schierenberg, a former surgeon who's now in Venture Capital, told me of a saying in the VC community that states: "Awards are like hemorrhoids, sooner or later every asshole gets one"

I thought it pretty funny but thought that VCs might just be jealous for not getting enough credit.

So I did a Google search for 'Entrepreneur Award' which returned 11,900,000 results and then for 'Venture Capital Award' which returned 21,100,000 results, almost twice as many.

At least now we know who gets the most awards...

Software Development Explained

I believe one of the reasons why Skyrove has been succesful on a small budget and with a small team is that we use our own products, i.e. we scratch our own itch!

There is no miscommunication between what the customer wants, what we think he wants and what he actually needs.

37Signals is another good example of a small company that builds software for itself. They are extremely stubborn about adding new features and reject most feature requests straight off the bat. They know that Basecamp (their project collaboration software) is good enough for them and therefore it is good enough for most others as well.

If you are in software development, I'd highly recommend adding their blog to your RSS reader (www.37signals.com/svn)

A Positive Way to Reduce Crime and Unemployment

This is an Open Letter to Ms Patty Stonesifer, President of the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation

Dear Ms Stonesifer,

I have a novel idea for how we can dramatically reduce crime worldwide by using technology in rehabilitation and would like to run it by you.

There are 3 reasons I'm contacting you in particular:

1. I admire the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's work in Africa
2. You were voted by Time to be one of the 25 most influential people in America (wow!)
3. Most importantly, your background in interactive media!

Here in South Africa, crime gets blamed on the lack of policing, the justice system, poverty, the legacy of Apartheid and the effects of HIV on our society, all of which are valid reasons.

Another large factor is that we have insufficient correctional services. We have a philosophy of rehabilitation, rather than punishment, but the reality is that our jails are overburdened and most all of the criminals are repeat offenders. There simply is no rehabilitation taking place. Inmates join gangs that function inside and outside of the prisons and the only skills they learn are of the criminal variety.

What if we created a social computer 'game' that's targeted at inmates?

What I have in mind is something akin to training simulations like those seen in 'The Matrix'. Now, we don't quite have that technology yet, but we have seen fantastic simulations in the form of games such as Oblivion and the World of Warcraft.

When an inmate arrives at prison, he could be locked up with a computer as his only cellmate. His only way to interact with the world is through the 'game'. He does not get a chance to react with any other inmates, who could contribute to reinforcing criminal behaviour. (A very anti-social kind of behaviour is needed to survive in the prison system, as opposed to the outside world)

In the beginning stages of the game, which will be similar to any online roleplaying game, the inmate would only interact with one real person: His online councillor. He can run around the virtual world and interact with virtual characters, but it's a restricted virtual world.

Along the way he learns skills. Early on, his aptitude could be determined: trading, driving, programming, farming etc, in a similar way to any Role Playing Game. Depending on his aptitude, the inmate is stimulated to develop these skills further. Either to use them when re-entering the 'real' world, or even to start a life selling goods on eBay for example. (no, not 'fencing'!)

He'll need to complete certain tasks and show improvement in behaviour to go 'up a level' and gain access to a wider world, and have interactions with more real people, inside and outside prison.

Some would argue that this 'virtual' world wouldn't really rehabilitate him to re-enter the 'real' world. But that's nonsense, many people these days in the 'real' world spend more time online than offline!

As the inmate learns new skills and shows improvement in behaviour, he's eventually given full online access, outside of the game, but still closely monitored. When the time is ripe, he may re-enter the real world. Very likely continuing to trade online, but also possibly with some high-tech skills such as tech support, programming, web marketing or online trading to name but a few. In South Africa, there is a dire lack of these skills while at the same time we have gross unemployment.

Some would say that such a plan is simply too expensive. But the fact is that it will save us millions if not billions in the long run. Prisoners will spend less time in prison. It will have a dramatic impact on crime, and as we know, crime has a dramatic impact on foreign investment and our economy.

Instead of having 20 inmates in a small room, we can now afford a reasonably comfortable environment for inmates. The idea is not that they have a 'fun' time while in prison, but that we see positive behaviour modification and skills learning.

There's a massive incentive for governments and companies to sponsor this because of medium and long-term benefits: reduced crime & less unemployment that leads to a stronger economy. But there may also be short-term incentive for marketing and software companies to market their products through this 'closed' internet game. Once back in the real world, the prisoner will need a computer, software tools etc.

A games developer, such as Microsoft, could develop such a 'game' through its gaming division in cooperation with correctional services and academics. The games developer can derive ongoing profits from, what is literally, a captive audience.

I realise that this might not be the Gates Foundation's cup of tea, but I do hope that you could perhaps introduce the concept to the right people or that you know the right person to champion such a project.

If we could 'banish' all the world's criminals to a virtual world where they stand a good chance of being rehabilitated, instead of the degenerate and inhumane micro-societies we currently create, it might just be the greatest achievement of the century.

Best Regards,

Henk Kleynhans
CEO - Skyrove Ltd.

p.s. I'm a constant 'idea generator'. Whenver I have a new idea that I feel could make a difference to the world, given the right champions, I share these openly.

Dances with VCs

I received notice today from a VC we recently signed a term sheet with that they have chosen not to invest in our company. I'd like to share with you some of the things I've learnt in the process, some of the traps I fell into and what I'd do differently next time.

The gist of the 'Dear John' letter we received:

"1. Maturity of company: [The VC]'s current Fund2 requires an established team and business. Skyrove would for the foreseeable future require a more hands on approach which deviates from this model.
2. Relative size of local market. It is uncertain whether revenue generated by Skyrove in the SA market would be sufficient to achieve [The VC]'s long-term revenue goals.
3. Barrier to entry: It is too uncertain how easy and attractive it will become for competitors to replicate Skyrove's technology and business model.
4. Other trends: It is uncertain what the impact of municipalities providing free data connective (such as San Francisco and Philadelphia) will be on Skyrove and its competitors' revenue."

Although reasons 2,3 and 4 are mostly hogwash they made up to lengthen a short letter, I completely understand their first reason. They launched a new and dramatically different fund halfway through our negotiations, about 4 months ago. The principal on the Skyrove deal resigned 2 weeks ago and things have generally been in turmoil.

A marriage at this stage may well have been to the detriment of both us and them.

Things I'll do differently next time:

1. I will not again accept an offer that gives majority board control to the VC when they're buying a minority share. When it comes to our product, we know our market better. We know free municipal Wi-Fi is much less of a threat to us than free water is to bottled water. We know our product can be replicated, but we're pretty innovative and will work hard to stay ahead of copycats.

2. I will not again accept an offer of more money than I need. We were offered twice as much as we asked for, for almost twice as many shares, in 4 conditional tranches over 2 years. They were effectively getting stock options, rather than outright buying stock.

3. I will not take VC funding before being cash-flow positive. This sounds counter-intuitive to some as you might argue that you need VC funding to get there! However, being cash-strapped has made us extremely focused on making Skyrove the best product for 90% of the market, even though we were only able to implement 10% of the features we first envisioned. When we started talks with the VC 6 months ago, we had zero revenue and zero clients. Now we have hundreds of customers signing up every month and revenues that are growing exponentially. Because of a lack of cash, we've become smarter and learnt more about all aspects of running a business. We've had to build partnerships to get our product out there. If we had cash, we probably would have struggled to manage newly founded 'divisions' headed up by overpaid 'vice presidents' appointed by the board, who could outvote the founders.

4. I will phone the founders of other companies in the VC's portfolio and I will listen to them BEFORE any serious negotiations with theVC.

5. I will more rigorously interview the VC at the first presentation. I will ask them how well their portfolio companies are performing and for more detail on how they intend to influence the running of our business.

6. I will not accept a vague term sheet that asks me to pay for Due Diligence costs in the event that I do not accept their offer. Trust me, the time you'll spend on negotiating a deal with a VC is much more expensive to your company than their costs of doing Due Diligence. In our case, the VC cut us loose, so we weren't liable for any costs. However, I was fearful that they could toss a red herring, forcing us to either accept new terms or to pay a large fine.

Yes, I've read this advice before from the likes of Brad Feld and Rick Segal, but it's a very different story when you're being wooed by VCs, have partners adding pressure and feel that it's up to you to make the deal work.

All in all, it's been a fantastic experience and we've come out of it a stronger company. We're still open to VC funding ($5 routers anyone?), but for now, I simply feel relieved that I can continue focusing on what's most important to me: building the best darn Wi-Fi service on the planet!

The 5 Magic Rules of Systems Development

I recently read about an ISP engineer who accidently deleted 700GB worth of customer emails. He got confused between a window session to the live server and one to the development server. Now, we've made exactly the same mistake a while back. As a result we came up with a short list of inalienable rules of systems development:

#1: The smallest change can make the biggest difference

Ever heard the chaos theory metaphor about a butterfly flapping its wings in Tokyo, causing it to rain in New York? It must have been a programmer who came up with that, because nowhere else are such effects more apparent than in the wild west of systems development. I've seen entire distributed systems go down because an SQL query got split onto multiple lines using "\" characters. Distributed systems integrate software from multiple vendors running on various platforms. They don't all use the same coding conventions. Live by this mantra and the rest of the rules follow naturally.

#2: Don't dive without a buddy

Never make changes to the LIVE server without testing, consultation and oversight by another team member. Take time to do 'checks' with your teammate before you commit any changes. Explain to him exactly what it is you're planning to do, in what order, what files will be changed, where they've been backed up and how you can reverse the action in case of failure etc. 9 out of 10 times everything goes fine. Prepare for the 10th time.

#3: Thou shalt not boondoggle!

Leave a software developer alone without clear timelines and deliverables and he will come up with a brilliant solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Have a clear development plan that everyone on your development team agrees to. Do not recode everything to make it 'more like Web 2.0' while there are security holes in your system, that you know about!

#4: The Power of 'One'

Do not work on many problems at once. Inevitably, one feature will seem more important today than the one you started working on yesterday. Tomorrow the same thing happens. All of a sudden, you're working on 10 features at once, and you're expected to finish all of them by the end of the month. You don't get to test all of them thoroughly before you upload to the live server on a Friday afternoon, and start getting frantic phonecalls from clients on Sunday. You now have to fix it, but first you need to find the cause. You have 5000 lines of code to filter through and you can't 'see' the problem.

Code 'one' thing, test 'one' thing, implement 'one' thing.

#5: All the world's a stage

Sometimes everything works perfectly on the development server in your office. But the moment you upload to your Live server, everything breaks!

Follow the Power of 'One' and test changes on a staging server before you implement them live. If anything breaks, you can figure out why and prevent the same thing happening when you're ready to go live. Your staging server should approximate your LIVE server as closely as possible. The only difference should be the IP address! Before you upload changes to the live server, upload them once, and only once, to the staging server. Test as if it's live. If you can, have some of your clients use the staging server for a while, and see if they experience any problems.

Follow the rules above and it could just save your job or your startup business. Either way, it will make things a lot less stressful.