Monday, November 4, 2013

Bezos, Amazon And Refusing To Act Your Age


In early 1998, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and CFO Joy Covey co-authored a letter to shareholders discussing the previous year's accomplishments. That letter has become holy writ inside the company, and is republished every year in its annual report. The letter and its contents struck me as incredibly prescient, or perhaps simply potent, as I read through Brad Stone's excellent The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the age of Amazon. It's no surprise that the letter has continued to be viewed as a touchstone for the company and its employees. The tenets set out in it are clearly represented by the way that the company develops and releases products, and the approach that it takes to everyday business. One of the most commonly discussed aspects of Amazon's business is its attitude toward profit margins. The company famously makes a ton of money every year and manages to spend most of it, ending up with slim or no profits shown on its quarterly balance books. For some folks, obsessed with the way numbers look in a column, this is endlessly frustrating. How can a company that makes so much money, and continues to be such a darling of the stock market, end up with so little profit to show for it? The letter holds the answer, and makes Amazon and Bezos' views incredibly clear. Here's the relevant passage: We believe that a fundamental measure of our success will be the shareholder value we create over the long term. This value will be a direct result of our ability to extend and solidify our current market leadership position. The stronger our market leadership, the more powerful our economic model. Market leadership can translate directly to higher revenue, higher profitability, greater capital velocity, and correspondingly stronger returns on invested capital. Our decisions have consistently reflected this focus. We first measure ourselves in terms of the metrics most indicative of our market leadership: customer and revenue growth, the degree to which our customers continue to purchase from us on a repeat basis, and the strength of our brand. We have invested and will continue to invest aggressively to expand and leverage our customer base, brand, and infrastructure as we move to establish an enduring franchise. The letter follows that up with a nine-point layout that describes Amazon's decision-making approach. You can view the letter here to read the points, but if you look at recent Amazon moves, almost all of them are consistent with the tenets set out there. Some of them, such as "when forced to choose between optimizing the appearance of our GAAP accounting and maximizing the present value of future cash flows, we'll take the cash flows," speak directly to Amazon's desire to remain a lean company. Stone's book paints a crisp portrait of Bezos as a man leaning into it at every turn. A key example of this in the book is an anecdote about then marketing executive Mark Breier bringing Bezos the results of a survey that showed that the majority of customers didn't use Amazon and would probably never do that because they didn't read books. At the time, all Amazon sold was books. This was not great news. Bezos' response? "I brought him very bad news about our business, and for some reason, he got excited," said Brier. Instead of seeing the news as a major roadblock to Amazon's continuing success, especially right after IPO, Bezos saw it as the perfect time to start exploring other categories of products that were under-served in brick-and-mortar establishments. After research, some of it performed by future Amazon cloud exec Andy Jassy and future Hulu CEO Jason Kilar, Amazon expanded into DVDs and music. And the rest, well, you know how the saying goes. What the anecdote says about Bezos' handling of Amazon is very simple, and I believe is overlooked a lot when people think about why the company does one thing or another. Put simply, Jeff Bezos views Amazon as a young company. As a survivor of the dot-com boom and bust, and a nearly 20-year-old company, Amazon is often viewed by tech writers and analysts as a venerable pillar of Internet business. An aging superpower that trades blows with everyone from Apple to Google these days. But that's not the way Bezos sees it, and that's not the way he wants his employees to see it. In the eyes of the people running Amazon, it's still focused on growth, still becoming whatever it wants to be. When you look at it through that lens, decisions to reinvest nearly everything it makes into expansion and new products, such as the Kindle Fire - even though those decisions negatively impact the balance books - make a lot more sense. In this time of massively high valuations for companies with seemingly little intrinsic value and no revenue to speak of, we're comfortable talking about billion-dollar sums. But when Amazon is concerned, we feel reluctant to use the same frameworks to discuss it, simply because of its “maturity.” But viewed as a company still in its infancy - reframed that way - it actually becomes a lot easier to understand. The age of Amazon? Younger than you'd think. The Amazon presented in Stone's book is still uncomfortable with its own success, and the Bezos depicted is still just getting started. It's a fascinating read. I recommend it for students of the company or those simply interested in a ripping business yarn.

Unii, A Student-Only Social Network, Signs Up 100,000+ Users In Six Months In The U.K.


Facebook started life as a university-only network and has since grown far beyond those original roots, with some one billion+ users globally. No surprise, then, that it's losing ground among its original user-base. Facebook finally fessed up to some decreasing usage among teens just this week. Being social's catch-all behemoth means there's plenty Zuck & co can't do. Facebook's huge size, ambition to ‘connect the world' and user-base that spans the generations is inevitably fossilising its feature-set, as usage of the service condenses down to a well-trodden average. This makes the social network ripe for disruption - or more specifically for creative deconstruction. In recent years less overarching services have been able to come in and attract users to more tailored and intimate products, whether it's photo-sharing (Instagram), mobile messaging (Line, WeChat) or more targeted social networking services. U.K.-based startup Unii sits in the latter camp. Like Facebook 1.0 it's focused exclusively on students (you have to have a U.K. university-accredited email to join). But unlike Facebook it's planning to stick with students and build out a business based on providing services to that specific user-base. “We want to scale laterally and with depth, rather than opening up to the rest of the world,” says founder and CEO Marco Nardone. A tagline on the Unii website reads ‘what happens at uni, stays at Unii' - a not-so-veiled dig at Facebook as a vast information repository that allows potential employers to pass judgement on job applicants based on the content of their Facebook profile. Unii is purposefully locking down its user-base to make students more comfortable that they are sharing stuff only with each other, not with their parents and/or future employers. Unii. com launched back in May, at a sub-section of U.K. universities and colleges (it's now live in over 185 out of a total pool of around 300). In those six months it's managed to gain a decent bit of traction among its 18-24 user-base, announcing today that it has pushed past 100,000 users. Nardone argues that students are getting tired of having to manage their activity across multiple social network services. “Our research across a sample of students from over 30 universities showed us that students are fed up of having to use larger, amorphous services to carry out daily activities and needs which are specific to the student community,” he says. “For example, a group of students need a fifth housemate for a five-bed house, but they are reliant on posting on Gumtree or on a flatsharing platform which means they could be sharing with somebody outside of their university. We can leverage the power of our student-exclusive network and match up students in similar situations.” Nardone said he came up with the idea for Unii after seeing what he thought was a gap in the market for an “all-encompassing platform exclusively for those in higher education”. He had in fact been developing a social network for traders (based on using crowd wisdom to predict markets), after leaving a job at Credit Suisse to do so. As that product developed, he looked into launching a sub-section of the service for finance students, which got him interested in the student market. Then, after talking with students, he realised there was an appetite for a dedicated platform providing student-focused services - and Unii was born. The social network is free for students to join and use, and won't ever be monetised by ads. Rather the plan is to launch a series of sub-businesses that sit on the platform and cater to students' needs - from the likes of finding accommodation (Unii Living), to buying and selling books, to finding a job (Unii Jobs). Some of these are already live on the platform (although it's not yet taking in any revenue, focusing first on building out its users), with many more planned: 10 will launch over the next three to 12 months, according to Nardone. Each of these sub-businesses will then have different revenue generating models. For instance, employers will pay to post jobs to the Unii network - with the ability to segment job adverts by university or study topic, and so on. Another sub-business will provide university societies with tools to manage their memberships - a sub-business that is more likely to have a freemium model, he says. Segmenting users' content is another focus for the network, which has a dynamically structured tile-based homepage view (see screenshot above) - something that Nardone argues gives it a more flexible technical architecture than Facebook. Unii also allows its users to post updates to their friend group but also to post things university-wide (say you're looking for a flat-mate), or to post something to the entire U.K. student community. Types of content that can be shared over the network includes the usual social networking staples of photos, videos and links. Unii has also built an opinion polling tool that displays responses in an infographic form. “We're not really replacing Facebook,” adds Nardone. “It's great to keep in touch with your family, it's great to keep in touch with friends elsewhere - in the U.K. and across the world. Facebook is great for that need. But if you want specific niche services, and want to communicate with the entire student market all in one place, which you can't physically do on Facebook, then you use Unii. So it's not in direct competition with Facebook… It does different things.” Unii has raised a total of £1.8 million in seed and Series A funding to date, from private investors, and is in the process of closing a “much, much larger” Series B round, according to Nardone - due to close this quarter. He pegs the size of the market in the U.K. at some 2.5 million students (undergrad and post-grad) with a £20 billion total market value. “We want a decent slice of that market,” he says, adding: “We want to be the sole student brand in the U.K.” The startup is also eyeing up international expansion - with the U.S. and China two markets of interest, along with Europe more generally - but Nardone also says it hasn't made any decisions about where to go next. Unii is currently live on the web, with Android and iOS apps also in the works - due to land in around two weeks.

PLAiR 2 Launches To Take On Chromecast With Netflix, Hulu Plus, Spotify, And Pandora Apps For $49


What do you do when your startup launches a product in a nascent category and then a behemoth like Google enters the space and validates it? And eats your lunch in the process? If you're video-streaming startup PLAiR, you go back to the drawing board and start from scratch. To review, PLAiR had built a dolphin fin-shaped streaming video dongle that plugged into a user's TV and allowed him or her to stream video to it. The first iteration of PLAiR was priced at $99 and was designed to compete with streaming boxes like Apple TV, even providing an AirPlay-like ability to find content on your laptop, smartphone or tablet and send it to the big screen. Then a funny thing happened: Google came out with Chromecast, a little dongle of its own that did roughly the same thing - but cost a third as much as PLAiR's device. At just $35, Chromecast became one of the fastest-selling devices in a category that hadn't really had a clear winner beforehand. Perhaps more importantly, Chromecast has seen a ton of developer support - with a number of the biggest streaming video providers integrating support for Google's device into their apps. For PLAiR the writing was on the wall. The company had to come up with something radically new and competitive to Google's product, and it had to do so quickly. It didn't hurt that PLAiR had a board meeting scheduled for the day after the Chromecast announcement, according to PLAiR CEO Saad Hussain. So the team came up with a plan to build the next iteration of its device - which would be cheaper and support more streaming music, game, and video apps. With the blessing of the board, it went back to work on making a device that fit the bill. In addition to board support, PLAiR got a lot of help from changing economics in the supply chain. Based on its cost of materials for the first PLAiR, there was little it could do to lower the price. But according to Hussain, after Google's Chromecast announcement, the cost of building similar devices changed almost overnight. Under the hood, PLAiR 2 has a 1GHz ARM Processor, 1 GB DDR3 RAM, 802.11n wireless, and a built-in GPU/VPU for full 1080p streaming. After rethinking the components it would use and the design of the hardware, the company also took a look at how it could add content more quickly. While the old PLAiR device required video to be streamed from the mobile device to the TV, the new device would have apps residing on the dongle itself. And since PLAiR 2 is built to support Android TV and Amazon Appstore apps, it has a wide range of content that's up and ready to go. The end result is a device that looks similar to the old PLAiR, but costs half as much and has a much larger offering of content than the old device - and a lot more than what Chromecast currently offers. That's because unlike Chromecast, which requires developers to add code to their apps to beam content to the TV, all PLAiR apps reside on the device itself. PLAiR 2 supports Netflix, VUDU, HULU+, Spotify, Pandora, and games such as Angry Birds, as well as cable apps like the Comcast Xfinity App. Users simply bring up the app on the TV and control the experience from their mobile device or tablet just like a remote control. While the device still costs about $15 more than the Chromecast, at $49, the hope is that the additional content and better user experience will hook more potential customers than its first go-round. For those who want to give it a try, the product is available for pre-order at Amazon.com, Newegg.com or PLAiR.com, and will ship by November 8.

Google's Barges Likely Glass Exhibition Spaces, Lease Indicates


The furor over Google's mystery barges in San Francisco and Portland has reached a fever pitch over the past week. According to our sources the various reports about the barges being showcases for Google's Glass retail efforts are correct. Today, a report by The Los Angeles Times' Chris O'Brien notes that most of the reporters going after this barge story have been looking at the wrong San Francisco lease. O'Brien notes that the correct lease's purpose is the “fabrication of a special event structure and art exhibit only and for no other purpose.” The sources we spoke to were still uncertain about the exact uses that all of the barges would be put to in the end, but aiding Google in showcasing Glass for its eventual retail run is the likeliest fate of the units docked behind San Francisco's Treasure Island. A story from CBS KPIX yesterday, which we mentioned earlier today, outlined a luxury showroom with a ‘party deck' up top and spaces below for retail stores that could showcase Glass and other Google products. This report was said to be ‘pretty accurate' by our sources. The barges are composed of shipping containers stacked together, with cutouts that have had large bay windows put in place and then covered up. The shipping container is already a favored construction block of Google, which has used them for years to house data centers that can be easily expanded. The rationale behind using containers in this instance is that the barges likely won't be a permanent home for the showcases, which could theoretically be disassembled and moved wherever Google needs them to be, on land or sea. Lack of retail stores in which to demonstrate Glass effectively and publicly has always been a concern with regards to making the head-mounted computers available widely at retail. In my time with Glass, it became incredibly evident that people had no idea what they really did, how to use them or what the value proposition was. Poor demo conditions in many places that I showed them to other people limited them to what amounted to a head-mounted video camera. A proper mis-en-scène for Glass will be all-important for having people ‘get' the thing, and apparently Google is working to provide just that. News of the barges, which are being built by a shell company called ‘Buy and Large Llc‘ (an apparent Wall-E reference) was broken widely by Cnet last week, which speculated that they could be water-borne data centers. But, O'Brien notes, this report is actually chasing the wrong lease, one that was signed on August 1st, while work on the Google barge began last year. A report from The Verge this week noted that the Treasure Island barge will likely be towed across to Fort Mason for display once it's completed. The Portland Press Herald, which published the image above, snuck out to get some close-up shots of the one at Rickers Wharf this week.

Fab.com Files Counterclaim Against JustFab, Says JustFab Is A “Predatory” Bargain Clothing Peddler


The latest chapter in the legal dispute between online retailers Fab.com and JustFab is unfolding. In July 2013, JustFab filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Fab.com, accusing it of infringing on JustFab's trademark by using a “confusingly similar” name, along with related allegations including unfair competition. Now Fab.com has hit back with a counterclaim that accuses JustFab of “predatory conduct.” In its counterclaim, Fab.com claims its reputation has been hurt by JustFab's “questionable business practices,” which it says is just the latest in a string of misleading marketing tactics at companies operated by JustFab's founders. Fab.com also says that a filing JustFab made to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) while applying to register its “Just Fab” trademark in 2011 contradicts its trademark infringement lawsuit. Fab.com asked the court to dismiss JustFab's complaint and order it to pay for Fab.com's legal fees. We've embedded the full complaint below. “This case is an example of the old adage that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. We look forward to having the court hear the entire story regarding the two companies' business practices rather than the selective, one-sided story presented in JustFab's complaint,” Fab.com lawyer Lance Etcheverry told TechCrunch. We've asked JustFab for comment. (In other Fab.com news, the company announced today that co-founder Bradford Shellhammer is leaving the site. Co-founder Jason Goldberg will stay on as CEO.) JustFab has raised $149 million in funding, while Fab.com has raised $336 million. As Ingrid Lunden noted in July, the two have another interesting parallel. Both Fab and JustFab have projected that they will make $250 million in revenue this year. Fab.com and JustFab are targeting the same class of online consumers–those willing and able to buy fashion online–and as two of the biggest players in the market, it is unsurprising that the two are duking it out so aggressively. JustFab's lawsuit, filed on Oct. 21 in the U.S. Central District of California, requested that Fab.com be prevented from selling any items that compete directly with JustFab, and to pay for damages of any lost business resulting from confusion over the brands. Fab.com hit back at JustFab's claim that Fab.com not only shares a similar name, but offers a service that is too similar to JustFab's. “Operating under the guise of a ‘designer-quality' fashion retailer, Just Fabulous [JustFab's original name] is in reality a peddler of bargain-priced, often low-quality, women's shoes, handbags, denim and jewelry that uses offers of discounted pricing and endorsements by celebrities (such as Just Fabulous's President and Counterdefendant Kimora Lee Simmons) to lure unsuspecting consumers into a negative option continuous service membership plan,” Fab.com said in its counterclaim. Fab.com referenced customer complaints that accused JustFab of using confusing marketing practices to get customers to sign up for a “VIP membership” in which shoppers who purchase a pair of JustFab's $39.95 women's shoes are automatically enrolled in the program and their credit or debit cards are charged $39.95 a month, whether or not they make another purchase on JustFab. In its counterclaim, Fab.com also cited other instances in which companies operated by JustFab's co-CEOs Adam Goldenberg and Don Ressler have been accused of questionable business practices. Goldenberg was COO of Intermix Media when the State of New York filed a lawsuit accusing the company of secretly downloading adware and spyware onto millions of home PCs. Intermix agreed to pay $7.5 million in penalties to the State of New York as a result of the lawsuit. Goldenberg and Ressler also founded the company Intelligent Beauty (of which JustFab is a subsidiary), which was sued by a group of California prosecutors for false advertising in its marketing of Sensa, a diet product that claimed to help consumers lose weight with a flavored food additive called “tastants.” Intelligent Beauty eventually settled the lawsuit by agreeing to pay $900,000 in penalties and restitution. The company was also ordered to give clear disclosures before enrolling customers in a membership plan, which Fab.com says echoes customer complaints against JustFab. Fab.com also claims that statements JustFab made to the USPTO while applying to register “Just Fab” as a trademark invalidate its current claim that “Fab” and “Just Fab” are easily confused. The USPTO initially refused to register the “Just Fab” mark because it said it would be confused with the mark Fab, which was registered in 2006 by a swimwear and lingerie company called Fab Product Designs that is unrelated to Fab.com or JustFab. In response, JustFab (then called Just Fabulous) argued that “Just Fab” and “Fab” were unlikely to be confused. As JustFab told the USPTO trademark examiner: “To be ‘just fab' (or ‘just fabulous') means to be happy, wonderful or great in some way, shape or form. It connotes a present sense of being.” “Fab,” on the other hand, does not share this same connotation,” JustFab explained to the USPTO. “While ‘FAB' by itself could be taken to mean ‘fabulous,' it could also be interpreted as an acronym for another phrase or an abbreviation for a different word. Because ‘Fab' by itself does not share the same connotation as ‘Just Fab,' Applicant submits the likelihood of confusion here is very remote.” This is not the first time that Fab.com has dealt with a trademark infringement lawsuit, although last time it was on that plaintiff's side (that suit, against Touch Of Modern, has now been settled). Meanwhile, Just Fab has been dealing with other fashion sites that use the word "Fab" in their brand names in another way - it's been buying them. In January 2013, it bought Fab Kids; and in May it bought European site Fab Shoes. That route would be trickier with Fab.com, which is now apparently valued at $1 billion.

Yes, Only 6 Users Signed Up On Healthcare.gov Launch Day, But Don't Panic


New documents reveal that a mere six people managed to sign up for health insurance through the government's beleaguered e-commerce website, Healthcare.gov on its opening day. Naturally, the press is milking every last ounce of this click-bait statistic, but in reality, it probably doesn't matter. Young, uninsured consumers are compulsive procrastinators. When Massachusetts launched its own e-commerce portal for a similar health insurance law back in 2006, a substantial portion of new registrants (12,000) came on just two weeks before the deadline. Enrollment numbers grow exponentially as last-minute consumers scramble to take advantage of the new product. Now, this isn't to say that Healthcare.gov's epic fail isn't bad. As I've written, it's riddled with propaganda and authoritarianism that have royally screwed over the technology industry. Continued problems with the website are a serious threat, as it may not be ready by the crucial Thanksgiving holiday when young consumers are expected to sign up. That said, Obamacare was not rolled out to a vacuum. We have plenty of historical evidence from the experience in Massachusetts to put these numbers in context.

Windows 8.1 Doubles Its Market Share In October To 1.72%, Handily Beating Windows 8′s Initial Rollout


Microsoft's Windows 8.1 grew quickly in the first month of its general availability, outpacing the launch of its predecessor, Windows 8, according to numbers out today from NetMarketShare. In October, Windows 8.1 doubled its market share to 1.72 percent, up from 0.87 percent in September, which is a precise 97.7 percent in the month-long period. Yesterday, I guessed that the end-of-October figure would be around 1.5 percent. Keep in mind that this is not 1.72 percent of Windows machines, but all desktop-based computers. For comparison, Apple's OS X controls 7.73 percent of the global PC market. Is 1.72 percent a strong figure? In a sense, yes. We can compare the launch of Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 loosely, though unfairly, as Windows 8 had to sell a unit to grow its market share, while Windows 8.1 had to only enact downloads. Windows 8 launched on October 26th, meaning that its October market share tally is representative of people running its various pre-release versions. It ended that month with 0.41percent global market share. By the end of its first full month in the market, November, Windows 8 had accrued 1.09 percent market share. In December, that figure reached 1.72 percent. Windows 8.1, by comparison, went live on October 17, and by the end of that month had reached 1.72 percent market share. So, Windows 8.1 is growing far more quickly, though its market share path has been smoothed by the sales work that Windows 8 put in. Of course, Windows 8.1 sold units by itself on new PCs in the second half of October, which should not be discounted. Speaking roughly, Windows 8.1 picked up 0.85 percent market share, while Windows 8 lost 0.49 percent market share in the month. So, it appears that Windows 8.1 sold about half of its market share gain, and raised the other half through upgrades. That's a slower upgrade rate and a faster sales rate than I expected. Windows 8′s market share peaked in September at 8.02 percent. It won't ever reach a higher level than that, but the operating system can rest content that it managed to grow larger than the OS X install base before it was supplanted. November is the first full month for Windows 8.1 in the general market. I think that if it reaches 3 percent in the month, that will be a decent showing. Four percent would be strong.