ICANN threatens to change the rules of the domain name game

June 26th, 2008 by Paras Wadehra

You may be used to typing in top-level domains (TLDs) like .com, .net or .edu when heading to websites, but the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) hopes to change that with a decision to open new TLDs for registration, according to today’s Wall Street Journal.

Under the new rule, ICANN would let anyone with $50,000 to $100,000 register any TLD they want, so for example, a web address could become paras.wadehra, rather than paraswadehra.com.

The WSJ has more on what the decision may mean for regular consumers and businesses, but there are also a couple ways it could change the Internet landscape for startups — most notably, domain speculators like Demand Media and Marchex.

Those companies, and other speculators, have plowed billions of dollars into millions of hot domain names, sometimes backed by high-profile investors like Oak Investment Partners or, for Marchex, public shareholders. The idea is generally to buy up lots of obvious domain names, like business.com, which holds the sales record at $350 million. Most good names that are auctioned get less, but still routinely receive six figures.

Those domains are worth so much because of a kind of traffic called type-in traffic, which is distinct from search traffic from Google or linked traffic. Right now, if a web surfer — especially an unsavvy one — wants to find, say, exchange rates, they might type exchangerates.com in hopes of finding an exchange calculator (they’d be disappointed).

Although the strategies of the two companies are different (Marchex, notably, wants to build out a locality-based content business), they both rely on one crucial assumption: that the dominant TLDs, primarily .com, continue to be the first thing people type in when they’re looking for something, whether it’s exchange rates or Disney.com. So what happens if ICANN manages to reeducate Internet users, and popularize sales of new TLDs?

The simple answer is that a lot of speculators will lose a lot of their own, and their investors’ money. While Demand and Marchex might be able to build up viable content portals around sites like chicagodoctors.com, the money they plowed into those names will be meaningless — as well spent on chicago.docs or chicago.dr, or any other name you can imagine. The game will become even more about search, type-ins traffic will wither.

There’s a strong counter-argument to ICANN’s action having any real affect on .com, though. There are already dozens of top-level domains, but they are thinly used, even purposed ones like .mobi (for mobile phones). The introduction of more TLDs over the years has not seen sales of hot domains diminish, which by extension probably means speculators are making as much as ever.

That may hold true, or it may be that ICANN has finally found a way to shift attention from .com, with the possibility for new TLDs that are actually meaningful or logical.

And a final argument is that it does seem unreasonable that 10 or 15 years from now, we’ll still be typing .com in for every major website. The Internet is a place of rapid change, and at some point, .com will start seeming archaic and unnecessary. But any real change would require a massive re-engineering of the web’s user-interface, at the very least, so it’s hard to imagine what those changes might be from here.




Avenue A | Razorfish wiki mention in Infoworld

June 23rd, 2008 by Raymond Velez

It’s pretty interesting how the press and our clients continue to find our internal knowledge management wiki to be interesting. Here Infoworld captures some thoughts from Shiv Singh on why we built the wiki. It’s all about bringing some of the innovations from the consumer facing world into Enterprises. Learning from the consumer world to help enterprises is going to take some time. What I think enterprises need to acknowledge is that collaboration isn’t easy, so the technology needs to make it easy. If we ask folks to open a ticket or get permission every time they want to contribute to collaboration it’s just not going to happen. Like Shiv said, we have found people behave just as professionally in the office as they do on the wiki, so let’s trust them to use open technologies.

It’s not just the features we are talking about either. The technologies behind these platforms are interesting as well. Some of the biggest most successful sites out there aren’t build on enterprise technologies. Mediawiki, the software behind Wikipedia, is built on PHP not Java or .Net. Not only can we learn from consumer facing behaviors, we can also learn from consumer facing technologies. What’s nice about technologies like PHP is their ability to start up quickly and change just as quickly. Something that has gotten harder and harder for J2EE and .Net. After all, the one constant with web sites, is change.




LiveMesh, the new ’synchronization’ platform from Microsoft

June 16th, 2008 by Raymond Velez

Think about an online-offline silverlight-wpf application that synchronizes your files using LiveMesh.

I like the name. I finally see the Live brand starting to come together for Microsoft. Now all it needs is some more market awareness. So, what is LiveMesh? It’s basically a new, invite only for now, platform that allows people to sync across all devices. Windows only for now, but that seems like it will open up, especially since it can be expressed as ATOM, JSON, FeedSync, WB-XML, or plain old XML.

In a previous post, I spoke about Google Gears and their technology to bring together the off-line and on-line world. LiveMesh is actually

The more I switch across laptops, machines, etc. The more I yearn for a cloud to contain everything. I recently moved away from Trillian to Meebo, just so I had one less desktop application I was tied to. This way any machine I go to I have my instant messaging list available. Moving to a web based outlook as good as the desktop outlook would be a welcome addition. That being said, at the end of the day I want both. Especially as I write this post from the plane offline using the desktop application, Windows Live Writer.




Google Gears and the offline/online trend

June 16th, 2008 by Raymond Velez

With Google Gears, Adobe Air, and Microsoft WPF there’s definitely lots of exciting changes in the desktop application area. Using the openness of the web to crack open the ‘closed’ nature of regular documents that we use today. At the recent Avenue A | Razorfish Enterprise Solutions summit, Andrew McAfee asked the audience who works on documents alone. Only one person in the room of 70  people raised the hand (still not sure why:)). The point is that we collaborate on everything we do and the traditional method of document revisions and changes is much slower than real-time changes and updates ala wiki style technology. The challenge is applying that to all the tools we use on a daily basis. How can we make code changes more collaborative and less of a check-in, check-out, merge model?




Skype announces unlimited long-distance calls

May 5th, 2008 by Paras Wadehra

Skype announced unlimited calling last month to over a third of the world’s population with the launch of its new calling subscriptions. The new subscriptions signal the first time Skype has offered a single, monthly flat rate for international calling to landline numbers in 34 countries.

The new subscriptions have no long-term contract. You can make calls whenever you want – at any time of the day, on any day of the week. From today, you can choose from three types of subscription – from unlimited calls to landlines in the country of your choice through to landlines in 34 destination countries worldwide.

However its not true Unlimited calling - all calls are subject to Skype’s fair usage policy which is set at 10,000 minutes per month (which equates to just about 5 hours of calling per day). Calls to premium, non-geographic and other special numbers are excluded.




Syndicated Client Starter Kit

April 14th, 2008 by Martin Jacobs

When doing WPF development, a good source of information is http://windowsclient.net. One interesting download on that site is the Syndicated Client Starter Kit . It is a Starter Kit designed to make it easy to create rich, syndicated multimedia and content client applications. It has built-in ad-serving capabilities, and includes the sync framework that takes care of syncing, local storage, subscription management and the safe caching of authentication credentials. The MSDN reader sample application, and the starter kit itself, are available for download including source code.

Reviewing the source code is a great way to gain insight on how WPF applications can be structured, and some of the architectural patterns that are used within the code, such as the Command Pattern.

Another interesting aspect of this starter kit is that it uses SQL Server Compact Edition for storing data client side, and I think this is a great alternative to SQL Server Express. Even though both are free, SQL Server CE has a benefit of being more lightweight, and easier to deploy with your client application.




Surface Launch

April 11th, 2008 by Martin Jacobs

As mentioned in an earlier post, we worked with AT &T and the Microsoft Surface team to build a Surface application for AT &T retail stores. It was demo’ed 2 weeks ago in Vegas, and will be going live April 17 in stores in Atlanta, New York, San Francisco and San Antonio. See also the video below :




News Corp., AOL Pursue Yahoo Deals

April 10th, 2008 by Paras Wadehra

Yahoo Inc. and Time Warner Inc.’s AOL are closing in on a deal to combine their Internet operations. But Microsoft is recrafting its assault plan by talking with Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., publisher of The Wall Street Journal, about mounting a joint bid for Yahoo, people familiar with the matter said. Microsoft and News Corp. have yet to reach an agreement on joining forces but one person apprised of the plan described the discussions as serious. Such a deal would combine three of the biggest Internet properties: News Corp.’s MySpace, Microsoft’s MSN and Yahoo.

The AOL-Yahoo deal under consideration would include the repurchase of some Yahoo shares at a price above Microsoft’s offer. Taken together with a possible search advertising pact with Google Inc., the plan could give Yahoo an alternative to a Microsoft takeover — although many analysts and investors believe Microsoft will ultimately win out. At the least, Yahoo’s efforts could give it more leverage to negotiate a higher price from Microsoft.




Yahoo!’s Board of Directors Responds to Latest Microsoft Letter

April 7th, 2008 by Paras Wadehra

The Board of Directors of Yahoo! Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO), a leading global Internet company, today sent the following letter to Steve Ballmer, Chief Executive Officer of Microsoft Corporation.

Dear Steve:

Our Board has reviewed your most recent letter with regard to the unsolicited proposal you made to acquire Yahoo! on January 31, 2008.

Our Board carefully considered your unsolicited proposal, unanimously concluded that it was not in the best interests of Yahoo! and our stockholders, and rejected it publicly on February 11, 2008. Our Board cited Yahoo!’s global brand, large worldwide audience, significant recent investments in advertising platforms and future growth prospects, free cash flow and earnings potential, as well as its substantial unconsolidated investments, as factors in its decision.

At the same time, we have continued to make clear that we are not opposed to a transaction with Microsoft if it is in the best interests of our stockholders. Our position is simply that any transaction must be at a value that fully reflects the value of Yahoo!, including any strategic benefits to Microsoft, and on terms that provide certainty to our stockholders.

Since disclosing our Board’s position with respect to your proposal, we have presented our three-year financial and strategic plan to our stockholders, which supports our Board’s determination that your unsolicited proposal substantially undervalues Yahoo!. Those meetings with our stockholders have also provided us an opportunity to hear their views.

We have continued to launch new products and to take actions which leverage our scale, technology, people and platforms as we execute on the strategy we publicly articulated. Today, in fact, we are announcing AMP! from Yahoo!, a new advertising management platform designed to dramatically simplify the process of buying and selling ads online.

Finally, our Board has been actively and expeditiously exploring our strategic alternatives to maximize stockholder value, a process which is ongoing. All of these actions have been driven by our overarching commitment to maximize stockholder value.

Our Board’s view of your proposal has not changed. We continue to believe that your proposal is not in the best interests of Yahoo! and our stockholders. Contrary to statements in your letter, stockholders representing a significant portion of our outstanding shares have indicated to us that your proposal substantially undervalues Yahoo!. Furthermore, as a result of the decrease in your own stock price, the value of your proposal today is significantly lower than it was when you made your initial proposal.

In contrast to your assertions about the effect of general economic conditions on our business, Yahoo!’s business forecasts are consistent with what we outlined in our last earnings call. As you know, we recently reaffirmed our Q1 and full year guidance, which is a testament to our ability to perform in line with our expectations despite the current economic environment. In addition, our three-year financial and strategic plan which we have made public demonstrates significant potential upside not previously communicated to the financial markets. This plan has received positive feedback from our stockholders, further strengthening the view that Yahoo! is worth well more as a standalone company than the value offered in your proposal, and would be even more valuable to Microsoft. Your own statements have made clear the strategic importance of Yahoo!’s substantial assets and capabilities to Microsoft.

We regret to say that your letter mischaracterizes the nature of our discussions with you. We have had constructive conversations together regarding a variety of topics, including integration and regulatory issues. Your comment that we have refused to enter into negotiations to conclude an agreement are particularly curious given we have already rejected your initial proposal, nominally $31 per share at the time, for substantially undervaluing Yahoo! and your suggestions in your letter and the media that you are considering lowering the value of your proposal. Moreover, Steve, you personally attended two of these meetings and could have advanced discussions in any way you saw fit.

As to antitrust, we have discussed with you our concerns. Any transaction between us would result in a thorough regulatory review in multiple jurisdictions. As a follow up to a recent meeting among our respective legal advisors we had on this topic, and at your request, we provided to you on March 28 a list of additional information we would need to further our understanding of the regulatory issues associated with any transaction. To date, you have still not provided any of the requested information.

We consider your threat to commence an unsolicited offer and proxy contest to displace our independent Board members to be counterproductive and inconsistent with your stated objective of a friendly transaction. We are confident that our stockholders understand that our independent Board is best positioned to objectively and knowledgeably evaluate our Company’s alternatives and to maximize value.

In conclusion, please allow us to restate our position, so there can be no confusion. We are open to all alternatives that maximize stockholder value. To be clear, this includes a transaction with Microsoft if it represents a price that fully recognizes the value of Yahoo! on a standalone basis and to Microsoft, is superior to our other alternatives, and provides certainty of value and certainty of closing. Lastly, we are steadfast in our commitment to choosing a path that maximizes stockholder value and we will not allow you or anyone else to acquire the company for anything less than its full value.

                                             Very truly yours,

           Roy Bostock                          Jerry Yang
           Chairman of the Board             Chief Executive Officer



Microsoft Sends Letter to Yahoo! Board of Directors

April 6th, 2008 by Paras Wadehra

Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT) sent the following letter to the Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO) Board of Directors:

Dear Members of the Board:

It has now been more than two months since we made our proposal to acquire Yahoo! at a 62% premium to its closing price on January 31, 2008, the day prior to our announcement. Our goal in making such a generous offer was to create the basis for a speedy and ultimately friendly transaction. Despite this, the pace of the last two months has been anything but speedy.

While there has been some limited interaction between management of our two companies, there has been no meaningful negotiation to conclude an agreement. We understand that you have been meeting to consider and assess your alternatives, including alternative transactions with others in the industry, but we’ve seen no indication that you have authorized Yahoo! management to negotiate with Microsoft. This is despite the fact that our proposal is the only alternative put forward that offers your shareholders full and fair value for their shares, gives every shareholder a vote on the future of the company, and enhances choice for content creators, advertisers, and consumers.

During these two months of inactivity, the Internet has continued to march on, while the public equity markets and overall economic conditions have weakened considerably, both in general and for other Internet-focused companies in particular. At the same time, public indicators suggest that Yahoo!’s search and page view shares have declined. Finally, you have adopted new plans at the company that have made any change of control more costly.

By any fair measure, the large premium we offered in January is even more significant today. We believe that the majority of your shareholders share this assessment, even after reviewing your public disclosures relating to your future prospects.

Given these developments, we believe now is the time for our respective companies to authorize teams to sit down and negotiate a definitive agreement on a combination of our companies that will deliver superior value to our respective shareholders, creating a more efficient and competitive company that will provide greater value and service to our customers. If we have not concluded an agreement within the next three weeks, we will be compelled to take our case directly to your shareholders, including the initiation of a proxy contest to elect an alternative slate of directors for the Yahoo! board. The substantial premium reflected in our initial proposal anticipated a friendly transaction with you. If we are forced to take an offer directly to your shareholders, that action will have an undesirable impact on the value of your company from our perspective which will be reflected in the terms of our proposal.

It is unfortunate that by choosing not to enter into substantive negotiations with us, you have failed to give due consideration to a transaction that has tremendous benefits for Yahoo!’s shareholders and employees. We think it is critically important not to let this window of opportunity pass.

Sincerely,
Steven A. Ballmer
Chief Executive Office
Microsoft Corp.