Robi Ganguly’s Big Ideas

Microsoft is attempting to open up and share its technical documentation with the world, free of licensing stipulations:

Microsoft to Share More Technical Secrets – New York Times

This bears watching because if they really follow through on what they’re talking about here, the whole idea of “web services” could take another leap forward. Imagine your desktop becoming indistinguishable from the browser (yes, I realize that’s been discussed many times) because everything on your desktop is accessing both local storage and “the cloud”. This could be a huge turning point.

The new Yahoo! Media Player beta is actually super powerful and makes a ton of sense. If I can figure out how to implement it on my blog in the next few weeks, you’ll see what I mean, but feel free to go check it out in action on Ian Rogers’ blog, where he’s showing it off regularly.

Princeton is working on a plan that will enable admitted students to go abroad before starting their college careers. I’ve often thought that I would have benefited from a year off before starting college and apparently, more and more students are of the same opinion. If this were to catch on, it’d be a large shift in the way we view higher education.

Amidst all the Microsoft – Yahoo! turmoil, Yahoo! announced OneConnect at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona last week. It’s unclear what’s really going to launch, as the announcement didn’t come with a product release, but it looks promising. I certainly will be watching to see what comes out when the team’s ready to share.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Yesterday, Michael Arrington wrote “An Outsider’s Flawed View of Silicon Valley in response to Redfin CEO Glenn Kelman’s blog post, How Green Was My Valley.

I’m shocked at his reaction. I’d say appalled, but Michael, really, I can’t say that I’m ever appalled by anything that a CMC alum does (I went to Pomona, for the record).

Why all the venom Michael?

First of all, it seems to me that Michael’s characterization of Glenn’s post is off-base. He says that Glenn compares Silicon Valley unfavorably with Seattle. I don’t see that in Glenn’s post – what I see is a comparison of the pros and cons of the two areas.

Must everything be a conflict with a clear winner and a clear loser?

Perhaps this is the huge difference between the Silicon Valley and all other “also-ran” cities. The competitive spirit is such that in Silicon Valley you can’t sniff in the area’s general direction without raising the hackles of one of its cheerleaders.

Let’s be clear – I don’t mind the competitive spirit, I really enjoy and thrive upon it. Competition is great and it creates stronger, more resilient organizations and people. But aggressive competition has its costs as well. To steal a tactic that Michael uses, “Don’t delude yourself” into thinking that choosing to be aggressively competitive is anything but a tradeoff. You’re choosing to alienate and motivate those that might have been your best allies.

Which brings me to the 2nd of my reactions to Michael’s post:

Being collaborative, cooperative and friendly is NOT a bad thing and it just might be the ONLY thing in the future

Glenn Kelman’s post is about how he, Hadi Partovi and Rich Barton all think that Seattle is never going to be much like Silicon Valley. It’s illustrative of his very point that he chooses to collaborate with both of those executives in crafting his post while Arrington goes off on his own about the perceived attack the Valley has suffered at their hands.

As someone who grew up in Redmond, WA and currently calls San Francisco home, my observation has been that the cutthroat nature of the Valley makes it much harder to feel like you can ask for help. Of course, this is just my perception, but I’d like to extend this point to something a bit more relevant:

It appears to me that “Web 2.0″ (or whatever name you want to use for the networked technologies of today) is about collaboration, openness and most importantly, the understanding that if the other guy wins, it doesn’t necessarily mean that YOU LOSE.

It is my belief that we’re all seeing the most open, collaborative, cooperative companies make a name for themselves because they understand that competition isn’t really about crushing the other guy, it’s about competing to provide your customers with the best, most useful products and services.

Furthermore, the approach taken by many of the Seattle companies that I’ve been watching has been all about following a strategy of open collaboration. Amazon, Redfin, iLike, Zillow, Picnik and many others are leading the way to a more collaborative, hopeful, helpful business climate. This is where the bomb-throwers among you probably think, “Wait, you’re from Redmond and Microsoft is all about crushing the other guy!”

Well, no, that’s not right at all. If you look at the companies that many of us watch and are most interested in at the moment (Google, Yahoo!, eBay, Facebook, Amazon, MySpace) you’ll recognize that many of them are looking to copy the playbook of Microsoft (and some are even beating them at it..). For decades now, the company has competed fiercely but reached out even more stridently to cooperate with those who could help them (don’t make me post the infamous developers speech again). There is no company out there today that has been more responsible for supporting software development than Microsoft. There are literally hundreds of thousands of small businesses that make money by taking Microsoft software and extending it and servicing it. The very idea of a software platform begins with Microsoft and while you might argue that they haven’t done enough you certainly would sound ignorant by suggesting that their collaboration and cooperation hasn’t been hugely valuable to the company and the industry.

If companies in Seattle or New York or Mumbai or Sao Paulo are learning that it’s better to work with one another and that means they “don’t have what it takes to make it in Silicon Valley” I say Silicon Valley better start looking into the mirror a lot harder. But somehow, I don’t think that Michael speaks for everyone in the Valley on this issue..

Finally, I have one last thing to take issue with, given that Michael was willing to nitpick every part of Glenn’s post:

Ideas don’t matter worth a damn. EXECUTION matters. PRODUCTS matter. Ideas? Everyone’s got them.

Michael writes:

The truth about Silicon Valley is that ideas matter more than anything. A Stanford (or even the occasional Berkeley) student with an idea can turn it into a Yahoo. Or a Google. Or countless other success stories. They are surrounded by people who want them to succeed, who are willing to give them money to support their ideas, and then help them grow it. There is no where else in the world quite like this place.

If anything, the sheer number of successful companies in Silicon Valley proves that it’s the execution that matter. The support system that Michael references helps in EXECUTING. Ideas are everywhere. As someone who has spent his time in the halls of Yahoo!, WebEx, RealNetworks and other co’s I assure you – there’s NO shortage of ideas. If Michael wants to argue that the Valley is better at hearing ideas and supporting their execution, great. But don’t tell me that ideas matter more than anything. ESPECIALLY not in Silicon Valley.

Popularity: 2% [?]

Last week I wrote about why I was voting for Hillary Clinton and my final point was about the disparity in media treatment between Hillary (a woman) and the rest of the candidates for President (all men).

Since then I’ve been doing some more reading and seeing some stories that talked about this issue and I thought it made sense to share a couple of them:

• In Ohio, CNN brought this issue up with a group of women voters in the context of a discussion over sexism and racism. 
• It seems to me that their conclusion is that sexism has been and continues to be acceptable in popular culture in ways that aren’t tolerable for racism.
• Nicholas Kristof writes for the New York Times that:
• “in democracies in the television age, female leaders also have to navigate public prejudices — and these make democratic politics far more challenging for a woman than for a man.”

Additionally, Paul Krugman writes much more elegantly than I did that the Obama campaign is in danger of becoming a “cult of personality”. As I wrote last week, I respect Obama. I’m not angry with him and I certainly don’t view him or his supporters as “the enemy”. The fervor that exists around his campaign is at the same time inspiring and worrisome. I wonder why so many supporters of his seem intent on saying things that imply that it’s their candidate or no one.

Additionally, he uses a phrase that I’ve been struggling to describe – Clinton Rules:

What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.

I’d like to reach out to anyone who supports Obama and say this to you:

We’re both in favor of some very similar things. We have differing approaches, perhaps. We think that the Presidency means different things, it appears to me. But don’t, not even for a moment, forget that what we’re really talking about here is the promotion of the core Democratic values and goals. We’re not just about one candidate. Because if your candidate wins, I’m going to be by your side, frustrated with the application of “Clinton Rules” to Obama. I hope that you’d be big enough to do the same if the situation is reversed.

Popularity: 1% [?]

In my first job after college, I was an “I-banker” at Deutsche Bank and my first Associate, Campo, used to repeat over and over again the above mantra.

I always found it rather ironic, given that my experiences subsequently taught me that banking is a pretty short-sighted profession that prefers to sprint on the backs of its employees. Day after day, week after week, the “fire drills” of the profession burn out most of the employees and the major method of keeping employees is by buying their time at ever-increasing rates.

Like few other people that I’ve met, I think about the long term.

I believe that we’re constantly building and growing what it means to be “me”. Our actions, our words, our choices – they provide us with a body of work that makes up the idea of self. I’d say that from the age of about 5, I understood at a very deep level that what I do today provides the idea of who I am tomorrow – to myself, to my friends, to my parents (the specific story involves Big Wheels, the park and McDonald’s..).

One of the challenges that comes with this perspective on life is that I’m ALWAYS looking ahead, thinking about what’s coming up, where I want to be going and how I should get there. It’s similar to what happens as I finish my run by heading up Fillmore St. – I look up to see if there are obstacles/people that I’m going to have to adjust for and I make sure to adjust so that I don’t have to suddenly change my pace or gait.

However, if all that I’m focused on is UP the hill, I forget that there are things at my feet, these steps, that I have to negotiate on my way up the hill.  If I

forget to watch what’s directly in front of me enough, I’ll NEVER make it up the hill to the obstacles in the distance.

This is a tradeoff that all of us are faced with in our lives. The question is an everpresent undercurrent every single time we make a choice: “Will you think about just right now or are you thinking about tomorrow, the next day and 5 years from now?”. We answer it with our actions, our words, our perspectives, our self-measurements.. our lives. Some of us ONLY live in the moment. Others among us only live in the IMAGINED possibilities.

Over the past several years this question has consumed me. Again and again, I’ve looked at this question, turned it over in my head and wondered to myself,  “How I can know if I should be thinking about the long term or the short term right now?”

It was only this past year that I successfully addressed it.

The problems of perception are myriad, but one of the hardest is accepting the fact that your view of the world disallows you from seeing ALL possible angles. I’ve come to accept that no matter what, I always see the sprint through a marathoner’s eyes. I always view the short term choices through the prism of my long term goals.

I’m never going to see the world as others who think only about the short term think. I can only hope to know enough about the steps in front of me that I successfully navigate them and save myself from falling on my face. I’ll leave the bulk of the responsibilities to those who think about the short term. My talents lie in the long term and it is there where I’ll do my best work.

I feel like I’m finally ready for this marathon. See you at the finish line.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Today is “Super Tuesday”. As most of you know, it’s a big day for the Presidential Primaries here in the U.S. and as an active citizen, I’m certainly going to be exercising my right to vote. I hope that the rest of you who have the opportunity do the same. In coming to a decision over who I was going to vote for, I’ve listened to and watched some of the debates, read a ton of articles and done some investigation of the candidates’ websites. For those who are interested, I thought I’d share some of my rationale in deciding to check the box next to Hillary Clinton’s name.

• I love substance: I’ve taken time to look at the meaningful issues that the candidates are discussing. I’ve thought them over and I’ve come to some conclusions. Number 1, no one is talking about education enough. This bothers me. Number 2, Obama doesn’t like to get specific. It’s proving to be a very successful tactic but it doesn’t resonate with me. Consider this quote from an excellent piece in the New Yorker:

“Obama spoke for only twenty-five minutes and took no questions; he had figured out how to leave an audience at the peak of its emotion, craving more. As he was ending, I walked outside and found five hundred people standing on the sidewalk and the front steps of the opera house, listening to his last words in silence, as if news of victory in the Pacific were coming over the loudspeakers. Within minutes, I couldn’t recall a single thing that he had said, and the speech dissolved into pure feeling, which stayed with me for days.”

I’m a fan of Bill Clinton’s because he was a natural orator, capable of inspiring and leaving people with that emotional feeling, while addressing substance as well. I watch the debates, I review the speeches, I shake my head. I’m not getting that from Obama. To those of you who believe what we need is style over substance in the Democratic Party because Kerry and Gore were “boring” I tell you that if you want style, Bill’s going to be campaigning, don’t you worry your pretty little head.

When it comes to questions of policy, I agree with Hillary over and over. For example, take a look at the debate over Health Care. Obama says, “affordable for all” and elaborates by saying that yes, some people won’t be covered, but it’ll be their choice, so it’s not an issue. Hillary says, “coverage for all” and elaborates by drawing on her 20+ years of working on this issue, telling us that if you start with a compromised goal in mind (coverage for most, not all) the lobbyists and opponents will nibble you to death. She says you have to bite the bullet on this issue, it’s just that important. I agree. 

Moreover, I fail to understand why this approach isn’t inspiring? We have a candidate pushing for Universal Health Care coverage in the U.S. and it’s the other guy who is more inspiring? Really?

• I’m a Democrat, but I’m a Democrat with a real problem with the party: I remember the 1988 election, when I decided that I was a Democrat. Largely influenced by my parents, I became a fan of Michael Dukakis and when my 5th grade class had a debate over the election, I was the only one (aside from the two friends I convinced to sit on my side) who took the Dukakis side of the debate. Those of you who know me probably aren’t surprised to know that I enjoyed fighting for my positions and the majority being in opposition provided more fuel for the fire. Over time, I’ve chosen more logical and defensible reasons as to why I’m a Dem, but it’s also brought with it a better understanding of the Democratic Party’s major weakness. The largest, in my mind, is that the “Politics of Inclusion” does not mean that your party must be the Party of Confusion. Let me explain:

1. One of the core ideals that I hold to be true is that everyone should have equal rights and opportunities. This is VERY challenging, to be sure, but it’s the right ideal. However, furthering this ideal requires discipline, tenacity and a commitment to championing the cause in a winning and clear way. The Democratic Party isn’t focused on clarity and defining what it means to be the party of equality. The interpretation I see most often out of my party is that “every cause and point of view is important and attainable.” As a result, each candidate has a different message with a new area of focus. Often, one Democrat and another sound completely different to voters. It’s no wonder that voters have a hard time understanding the Democratic Campaign Platform – there often isn’t one coherent view of it among the party leadership to begin with.
2. In contrast, the Republicans are DISCIPLINED. The party understands that its best chance to resonate with voters comes from taking a stance and then hammering their positions into the ground with the press and the public. For a populace that is already overwhelmed by media, decisions and information, this strategy is increasingly powerful. Think about the menu at your local Cheesecake Factory and then think about the one at your higher end bistro. Which one is easier to order from?

• I believe that you have to fight for what you believe in: I have great respect for Obama. As an individual, he clearly is an articulate, thoughtful, open-minded person. I believe that he sticks to his guns on principles and that’s refreshing. I think that this helps to explain a large part of why he’s being touted as the inspirational candidate, the one who can lead revolutionary change. My opinion is that if you look at the landscape of American politics, there’s a sad reality that us Democrats must accept: the Republicans fight dirty and we mostly just complain about it, rather than fighting back. We saw it in 1988 (the mocking of Dukakis ranged from his riding in a tank to the freeing of Willie Horton), we saw it in 2000 (“the environment’s not a real issue”, “Lockbox” and “Gore is a bore” are easy to recall) and it amazes me, but many people have already forgotten 2004 (Swift Boat Veterans anyone?). The Clintons stand out in their willingness to fight back.. HARD. I believe that this is some of the reason for the heartburn that many Dems feel in looking at this election – they loved the Clinton era but don’t have great feelings about the Clintons themselves. While I understand the heartburn, I challenge every Dem to ask themselves a very important question: would you rather have the candidates who sit on the sidelines, “fighting the good fight” but not leading, or would you rather have the candidates who win and lead? Bill Clinton did that for the party. No one else has, since 1980. Fight back, goddamnit! If Obama wins the nomination, I’ll be voting for him but I’m worried that in the General Election, he won’t fight back with the tenacity required. His glib responses to questions about how he’ll handle the Republican attacks make for good soundbites but by most accounts that I’ve read (see the NYT piece above, which talks quite a bit about his behavior and choices), it appears that he’s unwiling to fight fire with fire. I applaud that kind of resolve, it just doesn’t make me want him fighting for the Presidency come November. I don’t think it works.
• I really dislike the disparity in media treatment: I’ll just say it outright – Hillary’s been ridiculed and attacked for her ambition because she’s a woman ever since she campaigned with Bill in Arkansas. It’s not fair, it’s not right and it’s not in enough voters’ minds. This bothers me a lot. I look around and see a country where it’s totally ok to have a Hillary Clinton “Nutcracker” doll or to call her overly ambitious because she stayed with Bill throughout extramarital affairs and that it must have been purely motivated by the desire to be a politician. While race is an issue that can’t be touched, but sex is implicit in the very ways in which the media treats her as a candidate – the language, the specific critiques (do you remember the blow up of the “baking cookies” comment??) and the portrayals (the tough, icy personality). The treatment of Hillary exemplifies WHY women still have a long way to go in achieving equal treatment in American society and I don’t believe that fact is lost on a large number of the women who will be voting this year. I hope not.

While these are the main points, there’s more here. However, given that polls are starting to close on the East Coast, it’s probably time to wrap this up and get to the polls in SF myself. I suspect that by the time most of you read this, many of these points will seem somewhat obsolete, but feel free to comment or contact me to discuss this more. I don’t think the nomination’s going to be wrapped up for a few more months, given that the Michigan and Florida primaries are in some limbo at the moment.

Popularity: 1% [?]