PREVIOUS:

 

Craigslist’s money left on the table?

Brian Carney’s Wall Street Journal piece about Craigslist wants to know why Craigslist isn’t maximizing its revenue:

One industry analyst has estimated that Craigslist could generate 20 times that $25 million just by posting a couple of ads on each of its pages. If the estimate is to be believed, that’s half a billion dollars a year being left on the table… Google has turned unobtrusive text ads into a multibillion-dollar revenue stream. And posting a Google-type ad or two next to its search results wouldn’t cost Craigslist users one thin dime. So why not cash in?… If Craigslist does what its users ask of it, and Craigslist doesn’t need or seem to want all the ad revenue it declines to collect, maybe we, as end-users, should ask them to post some banner ads and give us the money instead.

Carney is either failing to see or deliberately ignoring a simple element in the equation here: The absence of ads is one of the key factors behind Craigslist’s phenomenal success. No barriers, no annoying popups, no distractions, none of the gaming and manipulation that Google text ads increasingly invite. Instead, simplicity and effectiveness — and trust.

Of course Craig Newmark and Jim Buckmaster could turn on the ads and rake in some cash, short-term, but they would undermine what they’ve built and compromise the principles that have served them so well to date. They’ve clung tightly to those principles, against the conventional wisdom, and doing so has served them too well to stop now.

PREVIOUS:

 

Back

We spent the last week up at Sea Ranch (or “The Sea Ranch” as it seems to be called) on the Northern California coast, watching seals, building sand castles, cooking and entertaining the kids. (They entertained us, too.)

Spending a week offline is a true luxury, for me — a chance to think more slowly and (I hope) deeply, or, alternately, rest the brain cells.

Returned to the Bay Area only to hop a plane for New York, for meetings at my publishers and a long-overdue visit to the Salon offices here. Some catch up posts will follow; apologies for some older links.


NEXT:

 

Away

This blog will be silent for a spell as we vacate, estivate and celebrate. Keep the Internets safe, everyone, and see you in about a week.


NEXT:

 

NY Times research says people don’t want RSS

From David Weinberger’s report on a panel at an Annenberg Center conference, I find Martin Nisenholtz of New York Times Digital making the following statement (I’m trusting David’s report of the words, but they’re notes, not a news article):

“Our research says that a relatively small group of people want to aggregate RSS feeds.”

I don’t doubt that the Times has such research, and that it is an accurate snapshot of current Net user desire. But it’s a bad predictor, because when you ask most Net users, “Do you want to aggregate RSS feeds?” their likely answer is, “Huh? Aggregate what?”

Imagine it’s, say, 1995, when a lot of us early adopters were already spending tons of time online but much of the world barely knew the Web existed or how it worked. And imagine you did research then that asked people, “Do you want to access Web pages with HTTP?”

Such research would have shown that a “relatively small group of people” wanted to surf the Web. And that research would have guided you in precisely the wrong direction.


 

Perils of group editing — revenge of the users

I’m basically a believer in the general value and usefulness of the Digg/Reddit model in which users submit stories and vote on them. The debate over at Edge on Jaron Lanier’s critique of the “hive mind” notwithstanding, I see these services as interesting additives to the old-school editorial world I still work in, rather than as potential replacements, and I enjoy using them.

Now Jason Calacanis (of Weblogs Inc. and now AOL) has revamped AOL’s moribund Netscape.com property as a somewhat modified Digg clone. Digg devotees appear to have taken umbrage, and registered their disapproval by flooding the site with votes for a story headlined “AOL Copies Digg” (Valleywag captured the screen). That story was the new Netscape’s top headline in the day after its launch. Another headline voted up by Netscape users reads “Digg rules…Netscape is utter Crap.”

If you’re going to empower the vox populi, you’d better be ready for, and okay with, its inevitable yen to bite your ankle.


 

Gates’ departure and a Windows Vista postmortem

This news of Bill Gates’ plans to step down in 2008 doesn’t really surprise me. From what I’ve been able to tell, Gates was engaged and excited during the early stages of Longhorn/Vista, back when Microsoft was promising revolutionary transformations to the file system and everything else. The following scaling-back and repeated delays of the project must have left him with an overwhelming sense of deja vu. When you’re the richest man in the world, who needs it?

So Gates will ride off into the sunset, and Microsoft will either find a way to reinvent itself, perhaps in the hands of Ray Ozzie, or gradually devolve into maintenance mode.

Given these events, this Microsoft blogger’s report on why the Vista delays happened is even more relevant. The posting was up for a while today, then the blogger, Philip Su, removed it — of his own accord, he says, not under pressure. The heated discussion remains on the page. Here are some extensive, relevant excerpts:

 

…The oft-cited, oft-watercooler-discussed dual phenomenon of Windows code complexity and Windows process burden seem to have dramatically affected its overall code velocity. But code can be simplified and re-architected (and is indeed being done so by a collection of veteran architects in Windows, none of whom, incidentally, look anything like Colonel Sanders). Process can be streamlined where inefficient, eliminated where unnecessary.

But that’s not where it ends. There are deeper causes of Windows’ propensity to slippage…

Deep in the bowels of Windows, there remains the whiff of a bygone culture of belittlement and aggression. Windows can be a scary place to tell the truth.

When a vice president in Windows asks you whether your team will ship on time, they might well have asked you whether they look fat in their new Armani suit. The answer to the question is deeply meaningful to them. It’s certainly true in some sense that they genuinely want to know. But in a very important other sense, in a sense that you’ll come to regret night after night if you get it wrong, there’s really only one answer you can give.

After months of hearing of how a certain influential team in Windows was going to cause the Vista release to slip, I, full of abstract self-righteous misgivings as a stockholder, had at last the chance to speak with two of the team’s key managers, asking them how they could be so, please-excuse-the-term, I-don’t-mean-its-value-laden-connotation, ignorant as to proper estimation of software schedules. Turns out they’re actually great project managers. They knew months in advance that the schedule would never work. So they told their VP. And he, possibly influenced by one too many instances where engineering re-routes power to the warp core, thus completing the heretofore impossible six-hour task in a mere three, summarily sent the managers back to “figure out how to make it work.” The managers re-estimated, nipped and tucked, liposuctioned, did everything short of a lobotomy — and still did not have a schedule that fit. The VP was not pleased. “You’re smart people. Find a way!” This went back and forth for weeks, whereupon the intrepid managers finally understood how to get past the dilemma. They simply stopped telling the truth. “Sure, everything fits. We cut and cut, and here we are. Vista by August or bust. You got it, boss.”

Every once in a while, Truth still pipes up in meetings. When this happens, more often than not, Truth is simply bent over an authoritative knee and soundly spanked into silence.

…Micromanagement, though not pervasive, is nevertheless evident. Senior vice presidents sometimes review UI designs of individual features, a nod to Steve Jobs that would in better days have betokened a true honor but for its randomizing effects. Give me a cathedral, give me a bazaar — really, either would be great. Just not this middle world in which some decisions are made freely while others are made by edict, with no apparent logic separating each from the other but the seeming curiosity of someone in charge.

…We shouldn’t forget despite all this that Windows Vista remains the largest concerted software project in human history. The types of software management issues being dealt with by Windows leaders are hard problems, problems that no other company has solved successfully. The solutions to these challenges are certainly not trivial.

An interesting question, however, is whether or not Windows Vista ever had a chance to ship on time to begin with. Is Vista merely uncontrolled? Or is it fundamentally uncontrollable? There is a critical difference.

It’s rumored that VPs in Windows were offered big bonuses contingent on shipping Vista by the much-publicized August 2006 date. Chris Jones even declared in writing that he wouldn’t take a bonus if Vista slips past August. If this is true, if folks like Brian Valentine held division-wide meetings where August 2006 was declared as the drop-dead ship date, if general managers were consistently told of the fiscal importance of hitting August, if everyone down to individual developers was told to sign on the dotted line to commit to the date, and to speak up if they had any doubts of hitting it — mind you, every last one of those things happened — and yet, and yet, the August date was slipped, one has to wonder whether it was merely illusory, given the collective failure of such unified human will, that Vista was ever controllable in the first place.


 

Give my regards to Bloggercon

I was on a panel at the first Bloggercon and led a session at the third. I missed number two, and I’m sorry to say I will miss number four, even though it is right here in my backyard, because my family is taking a long-planned vacation that week. (I seem to be an attendee of odd-numbered Bloggercons only.) Anyway, it sounds like it’s going to be a great event — sorry to miss it.

We’ll be off celebrating Father’s Day and a wedding anniversary and my birthday and the solstice, an abundant conjunction (or syzygy, a word I almost got to use in Scrabble recently!) of happy events; the week also marks the 20th anniversary of my move from the east coast to the Bay Area.

In 1986 I was a staff writer at the Boston Phoenix, writing movie and theater and book reviews. The prospect of moving to California had never been anywhere on my horizon. I thought of California the way Woody Allen’s character in “Annie Hall” did; it was a place inhabited by fecklessly superficial philistines who lived for their automobiles — a place where a native New Yorker like me could never thrive. I’d never been west of the Mississippi, and I had no idea that there might be some distinctions between Northern and Southern California. It was all new to me. San Francisco won me over on my first job-interview visit, and here I still am, unlikely to go anyplace else.