Samsung vs. Google

Android is a huge success. Google bought Andy Rubin’s company in 2005 and turned it into a smartphone operating system giant, with more than 50% of the global market and 700,000 activations a day this past December.

Perhaps, as Steve Jobs seemed to think, it was Eric Schmidt’s position on Apple’s Board of Directors that infected Google with an itch to enter the smartphone OS market. Or maybe Larry Page and Sergey Brin simply recognized the Next Big Thing when they saw it. (As Page points out, the company had begun Android development a year before Schmidt joined the Apple Board.)

Regardless of the “authenticity” of Google’s smartphone impulse, it’s the execution of the idea, the integration of Android into Google’s top-level strategy where the product really shines. Android improves quickly; the “free and open” platform is popular with developers and, perhaps even more so, with handset makers who no longer have to create their own software, a task they’re culturally ill-suited to perform. And everyone loves being associated with a technically competent winner. (I might be a little biased in my regard for the Android engineering team: Comrades from a previous OS war work there.)

For the past three years, Android has experienced a kind of free space expansion: The platform has grown without hitting obstacles. I’m not ignoring the IP wars, they’re real and the outcome(s) are still unclear, but these fights haven’t slowed Android’s triumphant march.

As we enter 2012, however, it seems the game may be changing. Looking at last week’s numbers for Motorola, HTC, and Samsung, we see a different picture. Instead of the old “there’s more than enough room for every Android handset maker to be a winner”, we have a three-horse’s-length leader, Samsung, while Motorola and HTC lag behind.

From October to December of last year, a.k.a. Q4CY11, Samsung is said to have shipped 35 million smartphones, taking it to the number one spot worldwide. Citing “competitive reasons”, Samsung no longer makes its sales/shipment numbers public, so we have to rely on ‘‘independent” observers to tally up the score. Having worked in the high-tech industry for decades, I’ve seen how this information game is played: firm XYZ sells its “research” to manufacturer W…and ends up as its mouthpiece. I’d love to follow the money, but these private firms don’t have to reveal who their clients are and how much they pay for their services. (For a more detailed discussion of these shenanigans, read an excellent piece by The Guardian’s Charles Arthur: Dear Samsung: could we have some clarity on your phone sales figures now? Another possible bias: The Guardian re-publishes the Monday Note on its site.)

But even if we “de-propagandize” the numbers, Samsung is clearly the number one Android handset maker, and, just as clearly, it’s taking large chunks of market share from the other two leading players: Motorola and HTC both announced lower than expected Q4CY11 numbers. HTC’s unit volume was 10 million units, down from 13.2 million in Q3; Motorola got 10.5 million units in Q4, down from 11.6 million in Q3.

This leaves us with the potential for an interesting face-off. Not Samsung vs Motorola/HTC, but…Samsung vs. Google. As Erik Sherman observes in his CBS MoneyWatch post, since Samsung ships close to 55% of all Android phones, the company could be in a position to twist Google’s arm. If last quarter’s trend continues — if Motorola and HTC lose even more ground — Samsung’s bargaining position will become even stronger.

But what is Samsung’s ‘‘bargaining position’’? What could they want? Perhaps more search referral money (the $$ flowing when Google’s search engine is used on a smartphone), earlier access to Android releases, a share of advertising revenue…

Will Google let Samsung gain the upper hand? Not likely, or at least not for long. There’s Motorola, about to become a fully-owned but “independent” Google subsidiary. A Googorola vertically-integrated smartphone line could counterbalance Samsung’s influence.

And so it would be Samsung’s move…and they wouldn’t be defenseless. Consider the Kindle Fire example: Just like Amazon picked the Android lock, Samsung could grab the Android Open Source code and create its own unlicensed but fully legal smartphone OS and still benefit from a portion of Android apps, or it could build its own app store the way Amazon did. Samsung is already showing related inclinations with its Music Hub and its iMessage competitor.

Samsung is a tough, determined fighter and won’t let Google dictate its future. The same can be said of Google.

This is going to be interesting.

What If Google Stored All Our Medical Records?

Regard the horrified looks on the faces of the attendees at a California Council on Science and Technology meeting in Irvine six or seven years ago. I’m the only member from the Dark Side, from the venture capital milieu, inside an institution “designed to offer expert advice to the state government and to recommend solutions to science and technology-related policy issues”. The other members are scientists and scholars.

The question of the day is electronic medical records: How do we computerize, standardize, store, secure, exchange our corpus info with a reasonable assurance of privacy?

My answer: Give the job to Google. And thus follows the politely alarmed reaction…and the objections.

Our records won’t be secure! Google will exploit our most personal history to make money on our backs (or other organs)! They’ve digitized books, is this yet another step towards a privately-controlled but overly powerful public utility/institution?

Years later, what do we know?

First, doctors and patients still have trouble finding and exchanging records. I have, as attorneys are fond of saying, “personal knowledge” of this fact. The exchange of records between my politically-incorrect internist, the Palo Alto Medical Foundation and the Stanford Hospital—organizations within a mere mile of one other—takes multiple phone calls, visits in person, fax machines.

Now try one of the blood-sucking medical insurance companies. To gain access to your own record, they send you, by fax, an authorization form for your signature…but there’s no return number, there’s no way to return the fax. It’s not personal, it’s systemic, an obstacle course to minimize claim payments.

Second, the current system, notwithstanding HIPAA regulations, leaves our records open to outsourcing subcontractors in the US and elsewhere, to poorly qualified claim adjudicators inside insurance companies and to employers’ HR personnel. In theory, there are walls. In practice, expediency: there’s “cost containment”, there’s an astounding number of people, “trusted” or not, who get to look at your records. Compared to this, Google looks pretty good. Yes, they have security breaches, people occasionally lose their password or get their accounts hacked, but these events are statistically insignificant. Add penalties for such incidents, weigh them against what we’d pay Google for the service, and we’d have a decent level of protection, an SLA for our medical records.

Few companies have dealt with size, with what we call “scalability” as successfully as Google has. They have the human expertise and the computer systems to store and index “everything”, this is what they do for a living, with more than 2.5 million servers that keep their data intact.

As to Google’s exploitation of our records… Of course Google cares, they can wring billions from our personal health history? All we have to do is write a contract to share the loot, we call this “revenue-sharing”. Think of what a relentless crawl through billions of medical records will garner them… Take a transversal look at all the patients who take high blood pressure (antihypertensive) drugs, look at morbidity (how often, when, and how severely they get sick) and mortality (when and how we die) rates. Or look at the more subtle but important combinations such as ancestry (the best way to get low cholesterol is to choose your parents well), other drugs, lifestyle (a.k.a. good and bad exercise, food intake, alcohol, tobacco and other substances soon to be legal in California).

This would be much better than the current and deeply corrupt system of medical studies. You think I exaggerate? I wish. See this sobering David H. Freedman story in the November issue of the Atlantic (a treasure of literate America). More

Not on the same page. Ever.

Could Google and Publishers one day understand each other? Frankly, I doubt it. Two weeks ago I was in Hyderabad for the dual assembly of the World Association of Newspapers and the World Editors Forums (1).
There, Google-bashing was the life of the party. As I told in last week’s Monday Note (see The Misdirected Revolt of the Dinosaurs) the climax was the “debate” between WAN’s president Gavin O’Reilly and Google’s top lawyer Dave Drummond. One comes from Alpha Centauri, the other from, say, Pandora. For those who want to get to the bottom of the argument, the publisher’s statement is here and Google’s top lawyer defense is here.

Dave Drummond after his speech (photo FF)

In a nutshell, publishers keep complaining about Google’s relentless copyright violations. Tireless Google robots crawl the internet, indexing and displaying snippets in Google News, without paying a red cent for the content they post. As a result, said Gavin O’Reilly, “Google makes tons of money on our back”.
Dave Drummond’s reply: “We send online news publishers of all types a billion clicks a month from Google News and more than 3 billion additional visits from Search and other Google services. That’s about 100,000 business opportunities – to serve ads or offer subscriptions – every minute. And we don’t charge anything for that!” He added that Google practices were fully compliant with the Fair Use principle.
Fair Use is “A tired rhetoric”, snapped O’Reilly.

At this point the discussion gets technical. And interesting. At stake is this a crucial evolution of copyright, from a binary form (authorized ≠ forbidden) to a more fuzzy concept (use is allowed but restrictions apply). This evolution of copyright is tied to the Creative Commons (coined by Law professor Lawrence Lessig), which define a sort of shape-adjustable notion of intellectual property. More

The misdirected revolt of the dinosaurs

The junkies are rebelling against their dealer. The dope is the traffic, and the dealer is Google. For years, the search giant flooded the market with an ideology built on the early 2000′s, ill-fated, get all eyeballs you can, the rest (i.e. monetization) will take care of itself.
Publishers have invested tons of money, energy and brainpower in order to follow The Google Way: designing sites, structures, pages, even setting editorial rules to gain audience. Any kind of audience, by any means necessary. Legions of Search Engines Optimization (SEO) consultants were enrolled to help implementing the new click-to-Grail.  At the same time, the so-called Search Engine Marketing (SEM) made a lot of expensive noise as media organizations were buying keywords to improve their ranking in search results, some of them spending as much as €100,000 a month in this digital heroin. At some point, for many sites, clicks coming from Google thanks to SEO compliance and aggressive SEM were contributing to 40% or 60% of their entire traffic.

Then, the tide reversed.

Publishers soon realized the Google windfall was not as high as expected. As the search giant kept thriving, their own revenue plummeted. Over the last 12 months, newspapers print and digital advertising revenues have melted: -16% in Western Europe, -19% in Central/ Eastern Europe and -21% in North America.  At the same time, Google is still cruising at a 35% operating margin altitude. The economic crisis and the structural problem of web sites (endless inventories inducing low prices) caused CPM (revenue of an ad per thousand viewers) to drop. This convinced publishers the advertising-based free model wasn’t going to fly. They told themselves that sometime, somehow, readers will have to pay, and that Google, with its all-you-can-eat, free-for-all system, was in fact “doing evil” to they dying business.

That was the backdrop for last week’s 62nd Conference of the World Association of Newspapers (WAN) Congress and for the 16th World Editors Forum (WEF) I attended and spoke at, in Hyderabad, India. More

War in the Valley: Apple vs. Google

It was long overdue: Eric Schmidt (Google’s CEO) finally resigned from Apple’s Board of Directors. Usually, these resignations are handled in the smoothest of ways: Thanks for the distinguished service and the like. This time, Steve Jobs issued a pointed statement: “Unfortunately, as Google enters more of Apple’s core businesses, with Android and now Chrome OS, Eric’s effectiveness as an Apple Board member will be significantly diminished, since he will have to recuse himself from even larger portions of our meetings due to potential conflicts of interest.” Full officialese here.

This is the Valley and its cozy relationships. By which I mean executives and directors sitting on one another’s board, competitors enjoying the same directors, venture firms “sharing” their partners around portfolio companies. For example, besides Eric Schmidt sitting on both Apple’s and Google’s boards, we have Arthur Levinson, head of Genentech, a director of both companies. Or partners at Sequoia (a very successful venture capital firm)
 sitting on boards at YouTube and Google, which might have help a successful “exit”, that is the sale of YouTube to Google.
Back to Apple, there are also lingering allegations of a no-poach agreement, one by which the companies agreed no to hire each other’s workers.
Closer to home: Be, Inc., the operating system company I founded with a few friends from Apple and elsewhere. For a while, one of our investors (and director) also sat on Microsoft’s board. Microsoft executives were investors in his firm and we ended up with Bill Gates (indirectly) owning a piece of Be. Ah well… That was a decade ago, the statute of limitations ran out.
The SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission), the stock market regulator, has become more aggressive in watching out for companies engaging in collusive behavior through cross-directorships. See here .

Back to Dear Leader’s words: Google enters more of Apple’s core business. More

The Trojan Horse: Web Apps

Web Apps are the future: modern, light, run and updated in the Cloud, they will progressively replace the antiquated, bloated, expensive to buy and manage desktop “client” applications.
So says Google. And walking the talk, they put their Google Apps against the reigning champion of desktop applications: Microsoft Office.
Microsoft never gives up and, as expected, announced a Web-based, a Cloud version of their upcoming Office 2010 along with the classical desktop suite, more feature-rich than ever.

Google Apps are free? Office 2010 on the Web is free. With the advantage of a familiar UI, User Interface, their brand, the desktop version as a fall-back, it would seem Microsoft is staying on top. Google Apps might be free (in most cases) and somewhat fashionable, if only for being “not-Microsoft”, but with the combined desktop and Web versions, Microsoft covers all needs.

Case closed? Not quite. More

Google OS: Chrome-Plated Linux or Microsoft 2.0?

Here’s what I think its taking place:

Microsoft executives and Board members are no dummies: they know Cloud Computing threatens the Windows + Office + Exchange gold mine, the biggest in our industry’s history. They know the future is Office + Exchange running in dual-mode. From the Cloud when a Net connection is available; locally when the Cloud is out of reach. Everything synched back when the connection is restored.
 Imagine Outlook in Cache Mode, just with a browser, without a local client, generalized to all Office applications.
 Their delicate mission, should they choose to accept it, is to move Office and Exchange into the Cloud, into dual-mode applications. The challenge is to get there before Google Apps gain acceptance but without prematurely cannibalizing the existing Office + Exchange profit stream.

On its side, Google wants to protect the search-based advertising gold mine. To do so, they need to hurt Microsoft’s ability to finance a broad-front attack against Google’s core business. That’s why Google wants to offer an alternative to “Office in the Cloud”: with Microsoft no longer able to dictate prices, the Office profit stream would dry up and so would Microsoft’s ability to finance an attack against Google’s core business.

This, I surmise, is the context for last week’s Google Chrome OS announcement — and for a rumored Microsoft event this coming week.

With this in mind, let’s look at Google’s pronunciamento. More

Web video: Microsoft, Adobe or HTML 5?

We have yet another standards battle on our hands — you might say screens, as it concerns Web video. Or we might watch our wallets, as the fight is about who gets the biggest share of the money spent delivering multimedia on our computers, smartphones and, soon, TVs.

My money is on HTML 5, co-opted and promoted by Google and Apple.

First, do we really care about standards? Does it matter that YouTube uses Flash or H.264, that Microsoft is trying to promote Silverlight or that Apple, more prominently, and Google, less vocally, are pushing an open standard called HTML 5?

The answer comes in two parts: we need standards like trains need a single track width across the network, first, and, second, standards are often abused, made into a way to pick pockets.
There is no charge for a train track width standard, but a license fee is required for building cell phones using the CDMA standard. (I won’t go again over well-covered ground, over the history of Windows, Office and Wintel.) The secret, there, is to create critical mass for a way to do something, for said manner to become a standard. Then, you charge for the right to use the method itself or, less directly, for something needed to benefit from it.
For example, if Microsoft manages to make Silverlight a or the Web video/multimedia standard, good things will happen and bad ones will be avoided – from Microsoft’s perspective, that is. More

Android Week

Something to keep our mind off the Wall Street catastrophe. Who knows, we might be on the verge of a “nuclear winter” as the Bush administration wakes up to another consequence of its intellectual shallowness, of its inability to understand that for markets to be really free they need to be regulated with an effective, uncorrupted police to enforce regulations.
So, turning to saner pursuits, this coming Tuesday September 23rd, T-Mobile is slated to announce their first Android phone. What does this mean, how will this impact the smartphone market and the cellular carriers?

Android is the name of the Open Source smartphone OS developed by Google’s engineers. What we think T-Mobile will introduce is a set built by HTC, running the Android OS and applications.  In advance of the launch, T-Mobile appears to be upgrading its network, or parts of it, to 3G connectivity.  In addition, T-Mobile plans an on-line store for Android applications, the rumor being it won’t impose the kind of restrictions Apple is known for.  In other words, T-Mobile welcomes Android developers with open arms.  Predictably, prices, handset and service, will be iPhone-like.  What appears to be not at all iPhone-like is a slide-out keyboard to be used with the screen in landscape mode.
If all of the above is close enough to the upcoming facts, this will add a considerable amount of energy to the already lively smartphone market. Many, yours truly included, are happy to see more competition for the iPhone and his imperious maker.  As I was documenting my iPhone’s numerous crashes, one Apple individual expressed happiness: There was only one “real” OS crash, you see, the rest being processed “killed because they started to use up too much memory.” It’s a relief to know my rudely interrupted Safari browser connections or Maps searches are not real crashes.
But, more competition is a vague phrase. Nokia has been around a long time, Windows Mobile is about 10 years old, RIM (Blackberry) too, to say nothing of Palm, Sony Ericsson and Motorola.  The iPhone has had competition for more than a year, what changes now?
Not the operator situation.  T-Mobile is a good company, with good customer service, they’re part of the big Deutsche Telekom konzern, arguably smaller but more solid than Sprint.  Curiously, neither Verizon nor AT&T, nor Sprint appear to be interested in Android.  Is it because they fear Google will have too much power on them because of the openness of the platform, because it could lead to Android VoIP applications bypassing their network billing system?  T-Mobile, in a challenger position, has no such fear.  On Blackberries, they offer what is known as WiFi Mobile Calling, that is VoIP over WiFi at home or at the office.  In other words, carriers don’t like Google pushing them towards their pre-ordained destiny: becoming wireless ISP.  Verizon talks the Open (that word again) Network talk but doesn’t really walk the walk, that is allowing anyone to bring their handset to their network.  They and Motorola got sued, and had to settle, for removing Bluetooth features allowing too much data exchange between a laptop and a phone.  Such exchange was bad: it reduced billable network traffic.  A bigger threat to the iPhone would be Verizon embracing the Android platform.
What about the product itself?  I’ll get one as soon as possible, I already have a T-Mobile subscription. I suspect the keyboard-based UI will be well received and I’m sure we’ll see good applications on the handset, if only native Google apps, games and utilities.  The technophile is excited, and so is the venture capitalist as Android will help more applications developers make more money, resulting in new opportunities to finance interesting companies.
And there is Google. Not the Android team, some members are ex-accomplices of mine, I admire what they do, but Google the search and advertising and Cloud Computing company.  Will Google help the still very timid smartphone advertising market?  Will a better keyboard enable more mobile applications?  For example, even as a long-time Blackberry user, I would not write this column on it.  And I won’t do it on my iPhone either.  But, will I use Google Docs on the T-Mobile handset because of its (rumored) horizontal keyboard?
Moving to content, will the T-Mobile Android phone run all YouTube videos, will it run a version of Flash?  The iPhone doesn’t, a topic of muddled technical and industry politics debate, Apple and Adobe aren’t working too well together of late.
Still on content, imagine this: Google makes a deal with Amazon and all the Kindle content becomes available on Android phones.  Or, not at first but in a future iteration, the video downloads Amazon sells become available on Android.  And why not start sooner with the music (MP3) files Amazon sells.
You see why I’m curious.  I’m lucky, the T-Mobile office in Palo Alto is about 100 yards away from my office.  –JLG

By the numbers. And what do they mean for our industry

This is the Fall season of business plans for the coming year. The numbers will mean pain for the media industry. Below is a set of facts and figures to keep in mind when considering newspapers, advertising, search, mass collaboration… and coffee.
The newspaper industry’s overall condition
80% gone: Within the last 12 months, the market value of newspapers groups such as Gannett and McClatchy went down by 80% or so. The New York Times lost 70% of its market cap during the same period, closing Friday at $13, lowest in ten years.  Monthly figures are not encouraging either: the New York Times Co.’s revenue (including the International Herald Tribune and the Boston Globe) dropped by 10% from a year earlier. Advertising sales are down by 16% and circulation revenue slipped by 0.5%. Classified (jobs, cars, real-estate) are down 30%.  For Gannett and McClatchy, ad revenue losses are accelerating, approaching the -20% zone for the past twelve months basis. Even News Corp has seen its value erased by 40% since Rupert Murdoch bought the Wall Street Journal. (Alan Mutter is tracking those numbers in his blog)
What it means: two things. More newsrooms layoffs, more consolidations.  For the latter, consolidations, the weightiest — and yet quite unlikely – would be the acquisition of the New York Times by Murdoch. As reported by Michael Wolff in Vanity Fair’s latest issue, Murdoch keeps crunching numbers in contemplation of such a move. (One of the assumptions is merging the back-office operations of the Times and the Wall Street Journal). Europe won’t be spared by massive restructurings, not only slashing the editorial meat (the easy way), but also by repositioning newspapers and changing revenue models.
IPhone & mobile browsing
$1million a day. That’s the gross revenue for iPhone applications sold through the AppStore. Apple reported 60 million downloads of applications for the iPhone, just one month after the opening of the AppStore (source: Wall Street Journal, Aug. 11). Apple is getting “only” 30% of this revenue. Still, this market, potentially $1bn a year, didn’t exist three months ago.
+58%. IPhone browsing has increased by 58% from July to August as reported by Market Share (the 3G version was launched July 11).
What it means: the mobile Internet is finally gaining traction. By the end of the year, several competitors (Nokia, RIM-Blackberry, Android) will join the fray with powerful and user-friendly browsers. We foresee another steep increase in mobile browsing after the holiday season. 2009 could be “the” year for mobile browsing.
140 million users of mobile social networks by 2013. According to ABI Research, the next big thing is mobile access to social rings such as Facebook or MySpace. ABI might be right judging by the number of people who got the Facebook app on their iPhone.  The exact number isn’t known but this app received the highest number of reviews of all iPhone apps, more than 2030 reviews, compared to a couple of hundreds for the next one down the list.
What it means: even though social networking has yet to become a channel for news delivery, it is the medium of choice to reach young people. Facebook, MySpace and others are used by:  85% of online and mobile active users from the “Generation Y” (born after 1979);  71% by Gen X (born  between1965-19789); and 59% by Baby-boomers (born between 1946-1964). (Sources: Pew Research and eMarketer)
24.4 million downloads of the ad-blocking plug-in for Firefox, a 10 times increase in one year. It is by far the most popular add-on this browser. This yields only 5,4 million daily users but their number is growing fast and a rate of half million download per day can’t be ignored. (Source:
What it means: sites should think twice before before inundating their home page with invasive and poorly executed advertising. Those are incentives to use to ad-blocking software.
42% of all online ad spending goes to search ads, and the proportion is growing. According to this eMarketer 2008 estimate, display ads spending will remain flat. (In fact, the percentage share will decline, since the overall online ad market is still growing at a healthy 20% in the US).
What it means: keep that in mind if you are in business plan or website redesign mode (make room for Google Ads rather than for big banners).
Search and News
83% of people reading news on the internet use search engines to find stories of interest, even though they land, most of the times (51%), on a news brand they know (small consolation). The proportion was 70% in 2004, it is reaching a new plateau. But the intensity of search engines use is still growing: in 2004, 19% admitted using a SE three times a week; this proportion is now 31%.
What it means: search engine optimization is definitely a “must” investment. No doubt. A good SEO person in an e-newsroom quickly pays for his salary.  As far as Search Engine Marketing (keywords acquisition) is concerned, this is a different story. Some news sites (such as Le Figaro in France) are racking up great ranking thanks to a massive investment in keywords. Viewed from an Excel perspective, it does work — in the short run. But there is still no model showing how a site that relies heavily on keywords purchases actually keeps its audience. It’s dope, you’re high for a short time.
700 to 1000 Google computers are used to execute a single search (when you hit the enter key). In a split second (113 million results for ‘léonard’ in 17 hundreds of a second), a Google-brewed software called Map Reduce slices up your request, distributes it among its million servers and sends back results. Google invests about $2bn a year in datacenters.  For this, the company buys up land across the world on one condition: as traffic grows, it must accommodate a new building within six months.

What it means: theses numbers are just a glimpse at Google’s unparalleled power. The latest iteration of Google’s drive for more power is the new browser Chrome (see Jean-Louis’ column below). But it is not the last. Google wants to index the world, from 32 million books listed in libraries worldwide to your voice-print if you call its phone directory, or street views (readable text included) of your town. Now, Google must be taken into consideration while planning for any information system.
Long tail true stories
90% of Netflix’s catalog (the American DVD rental store) is rented at least once a month. And nearly two-thirds of the movies are rented thanks to a recommendation generated by the site itself.
MSNBC uses a cookie to keep track of the 16 articles recently read and uses automated text analysis to predict what news story you’ll want to read. (Source: Super crunchers by Ian Ayres)
What it means: social recommendation engines and collaborative filtering works. They help revive inventories, movies or news stories. OK, this bruises the charming notion of serendipity. But keep this in mind: a ten-year old newspaper publishing an average of 50 stories a day built a stock of 150.000 articles to dig in.  Next, consider that online papers have between 3 to 5 pages views per visits.  An optimized delivery system for related stories makes a huge difference in revenue.
10 million subscribers for Safaricom, a Kenyan mobile phone operator. Interestingly, when Vodafone bought a stake in this company back in 2000, the first version of the business plan bet on 400,000 users max. It got 25 times more. Among things other than good service and good pricing, Safaricom encouraged new uses such as transferring money. Working with Barclays, Standard Chartered and Oracle, Safaricom created M-Pesa a mobile phone cash-transfer system, now a quasi-bank. Safaricom is a profitable $1bn company (read its CFO interview in Kenya business daily).
What it means: new (big) businesses can emerge  from unexpected applications based on existing platforms.
Wiki dynamics
1.7 minutes. This is the time it takes to see an obscenity removed by the editors of Wikipedia, according to the MIT. Nature magazine took a sample of 42 scientific entries and found 3 inaccuracies in Encyclopedia Britannica and 4 in Wikipedia. One big difference: on Wiki the new, corrected edition, is just minutes away. (Source: Wikinomics,  by Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams).
What it means: the idea of full-of-crap wiki systems is dead. Fact is: due to its contributive structure, Wikipedia is a fairly accurate tool. On a purely statistical basis, editors and publishers should not be afraid of setting up Wiki-information systems for news-related topics. Today’s reluctance lies in our culture, not in the cost column: Wikipedia has only five full time employees.
Water consumption
840 liters of water to produce this article. That’s about the eco-footprint of the six cups of coffee I drank writing this note. Each 125ml cup required 140 liters of water to grow and process the beans. Stunning, isn’t it? And that’s nothing compared to 16.000 liters (yep, sixteen tons of water) to produce one single kilogram of beef. By comparison, the computer industry is downright frugal with only 32 liters to produce a 2gr microchip. How does it relate to the news business. Uh, it doesn’t. ( –FF