Unemployment continues to be an issue here in the States, but the tech industry could prove a very valuable resource when it comes to building out the American work force. That said, I sat down with GroupMe co-founder Steve Martocci recently and he just may have a plan to help solve the problem.
In conjunction with former White House CTO Aneesh Chopra, musician Jon Bon Jovi, and Gilt Groupe's VP of Quality Engineering Kevin Haggard, GroupMe and Steve Martocci will participate in a new initiative aimed at training young people in the ways of Quality Assurance tech positions. Jibe, OnSwipe and Newton are all participating, as well. The program was developed as a commitment to the White House’s Summer Jobs + initiative, which calls businesses to work with the government to offer a path toward employment for low-income youth.
The program will focus specifically on Quality Assurance jobs, which Martocci sees as a platform to go on and do even more creative things in the tech space. The goal is to provide at the very least 1,000 QA internships this coming summer.
But you can’t expect kids to just jump up and be ready for a tech job, especially when education for it is lacking. Luckily, SummerQAmp is partnering with the CK-12 Foundation to launch an online educational platform later this year, where young people can learn more about what QA is really about and help in the development of mobile apps. Of course, the site will also function as an internship listings page.
Unemployment continues to be an issue here in the States, but the tech industry could prove a very valuable resource when it comes to building out the American work force. That said, I sat down with GroupMe co-founder Steve Martocci recently and he just may have a plan to help solve the problem.
In conjunction with the CTO of the White House Aneesh Chopra, musician Jon Bon Jovi, and Gilt Groupe's VP of Quality Engineering Kevin Haggard, GroupMe and Steve Martocci will participate in a new initiative aimed at training young people in the ways of Quality Assurance tech positions. Jibe, OnSwipe and Newton are all participating, as well. The program was developed as a commitment to the White House’s Summer Jobs + initiative, which calls businesses to work with the government to offer a path toward employment for low-income youth.
The program will focus specifically on Quality Assurance jobs, which Martocci sees as a platform to go on and do even more creative things in the tech space. The goal is to provide at the very least 1,000 QA internships this coming summer.
But you can’t expect kids to just jump up and be ready for a tech job, especially when education for it is lacking. Luckily, SummerQAmp is partnering with the CK-12 Foundation to launch an online educational platform later this year, where young people can learn more about what QA is really about and help in the development of mobile apps. Of course, the site will also function as an internship listings page.
Just as surely as the swallows winging their way back to Capistrano or my mouth herpes flaring up again, as expected, the Apple Store is down.
Remember that we will have a full liveblog plus a full, live video commentary running during the event at 1pm Eastern/11am Pacific. There is no live streaming of the event anywhere, so watch this space for what Apple has on offer.
Just as surely as the swallows wing their way back to Capistrano or my mouth herpes flare up, as expected, the Apple Store is down.
Remember that we will have a full liveblog plus a full, live video commentary running during the event at 1pm Eastern/11am Pacific. There is no live streaming of the event anywhere, so watch this space for what Apple has on offer.
While I find most reality TV abhorrent, last week’s Shark Tank brought a very interesting concept to the usual babble that is the modern “boss” show. In this episode, Scott Jordan, creator of ScottEVest, appeared in front of a motley crew of entrepreneurs including Mark Cuban and Kevin O’Leary to pitch his patent licensing business, Technology Enabled Clothing or TEC. You can watch the episode here if you’re a masochist.
I’m not about to defend any of the people on here except to say that they are successful in their own right and most of them are blowhards. Blowhards can and are often successful and interesting, but often not on their own terms (see also) and often to the detriment of their souls. But darn if they don’t make for some good TV.
The premise of the show is fairly simple. Entrepreneurs, usually some guys who have a widget to sell, come on the show to request a few hundred thou from these investors. Most important, Mark Burnett Productions, takes a percentage of each company, whether it receives funding or not, so it’s sort of a nice investment engine for ABC. The entrepreneurs get fifteen minutes in the spotlight, offering pitches that are one step up from a first-year MBA presentation, then the sharks get to tear into them. In the end, nobody goes home happy except maybe Mark Burnett.
So Scott comes on and wants to pitch TEC. TEC, for lack of a better term, is a licensing company and for lack of a better epithet it’s a patent troll. Rather than make anything, the company licenses the technology that is in ScottEVest clothing, ensuring the circle of litigation continues. Mark Cuban, in a bout of reasonableness, points out that this sort of company is what is wrong with the technology industry while Scott sticks to his guns saying that this is why the founding fathers built a patent system in the first place.
You’ll notice a few key phrases in that last paragraph: “reasonable,” “patent system,” “litigation.” Clearly this isn’t your Snooki’s reality TV.
The two got into it on Twitter with Cuban supporting a competing brand that, in a sense, infringes on Scott’s patent and scott releasing wild-eyed videos and letters. In the end it degenerated into an exercise in self-promotion with Cuban coming out on top because he stopped caring after the show wrapped.
@scottevest doesnt surprise me that you have to go back to the 1800s to find an example
—
Mark Cuban (@mcuban) March 05, 2012
@AyeGear people will easily figure out work arounds. Thatswhy his patent should be worthless.
—
Mark Cuban (@mcuban) March 05, 2012
You get the idea.
If you’re still with me, there are two important lessons to take away from this. First is that entrepreneurship has now become popular entertainment. A decade ago if you had an idea you had two options: you could try to sell it to a big company or you could hook up with one of those shady “invention” outfits who would try to license your patent, a la Intellectual Ventures. There really was no third way because there was no way to distribute your invention aside from putting a bunch of junk in your trunk and driving around the midwest like the dad in Gremlins.
All that has changed. Now there are pitch contests, Disrupts, hack-a-thons, FooBarCamps, Amsterdamstartup events, and trade shows galore. There are Kickstarters and Arduino boards and Chinese manufacturers lining up to build any piece of junk you can CAD. There are desktop, tabletop, and basement 3D printers and anyone with a mouse and a dream can code the next Path. It’s gotten so easy for people to build something that the competition to be good has been replaced with the competition to be first. And that race makes for good TV. No one wants to see some sad sack drive through Idaho trying to sell a smokeless ash tray but they love seeing two dudes get up trying to sell a pair of lip balms that mix to create different flavors because these guys have seen so many entrepreneurs do their little dance on stage that they think they have a chance.
The second lesson is that this show actually posited some very good points on patent law and the creative enterprise. Scott didn’t want to sell any part of his vest company because he knew it was a solid business. As odious as he seems on the show, he’s a smart guy and he knows he’s got a goose that lays hoodies. What he packaged for them, then, was a derivative. They were investing in future gains on lawsuits generated by his patents. If that isn’t the wildest television I’ve seen since Sammy Davis Jr. kissed Archie Bunker, I don’t know what is.
And Scott has no reason to be ashamed. Patent law works just as he described it. It protects him from copycats and clones for a certain period (and there are clones out there already, so it doesn’t worry very well) and all of his posturing is business as usual in business. While Cuban is trying to be noble, Jordan is trying to be realistic.
So we get to the two most pernicious aspects of start-up life: the flip assumption that anyone can be a billionaire and the mercenary assumption that you should litigate any and all comers. Building a business is hard work. I’ve seen it done countless times and in the course of moving through TechCrunch I’ve done (some) of it. It’s not all elevator pitches and networking and seed money. It’s building a project in your spare time and then building another one and then building another one until you’re ready to ship. It’s building something on top of the real moneymaker in your organization – Instagram, for example, was a side project that became the main project – and then spinning it off. It requires effort and intelligence, not jeans, a funny t-shirt, and a blazer.
Second, we have to agree with Cuban that patent law is broken and we have to agree with Jordan that his products must be protected. Patents are a slippery subject and too often they’re used as cudgels rather than a sniper rifles. The more time spent putzing around with who infringed on who, the less time entrepreneurs have to make the next big thing. It’s a shame and it should change.
So there you have it: we learned something from reality TV. A real first. Hopefully Cam and Mitchell don’t decide to clone themselves, thereby raising a national debate on the legality of human chimaeras. I don’t think the public dialogue could handle it.
Telecoms giant Telefonica has unveiled the latest addition to a network of nine startup incubators it’s been busily building in Latin America and Spain. The latest “Wayra Academy” was announced today in London but won’t be opening its doors until May. Here’s how it’s set up: Telefonica takes around a 10% stake in a startup for up to €50,000 in funding, pocket change to a company like Telefonica. Wayra will put about 20 startups into its shiny new London building for six months, after which it will help them pitch for follow-on funding from other sources of venture capital. No VC partners have been announced yet as “the speed of action is crucial and we wanted to open all Wayra Avademies this year,” said José María Álvarez-Pallete, Chairman and CEO, Telefónica Europe at the launch.
If a startup doesn’t find other sources of funding in 6 months, Telefonica says they can stay another six months, though presumably they’d have to start paying rent, or perhaps make way for a bunch of new entrants.
In exchange for the initial funding Telefonica gets the right of first refusal on the companies. Clearly that provides some potential security in that you’ve basically got a potential buyer before you even start, but it’s not going to be very competitive if your startup gets a better offer from some other suitor. Telefonica says it doesn’t require the startup to give it exclusivity.
However the big draw of course is that if you’re a startup that needs to have a telecom partner at the off, this is a dream come true. The ideal scenario is that Wayra startups will get PR-d amongst Telefonica companies and internally.
Applying startups will get filtered down to 30-40 and will then have to pitch during a Wayra Week in late May.
It also plans to open other Wayra’s in Berlin, Dublin and Prague. Ultimately it plans to fund around 350 startups.
At least Wayra London’s location won’t be hobbled by not being in London’s Eastern cluster of startups. Its Tottenham Court Road location means it’s about 2 minutes walk away from the 22,000 students at nearby at University College London. Simon Devonshire will head up the London Wayra.
London is now getting seriously up to speed with coworking places and incubators. Just don’t call it a bubble…
This video from Waterloo Labs shows a bunch of young, excited interns building what amounts to a computer-controlled Etch-A-Sketch. The project uses an Xbox Kinect sensor to find the nearest point in space and then transmits that motion to an Arduino board which in turn controls stepper motors to turn the Etch-A-Sketch knobs. Sure you could just turn the knobs yourself, but where would the fun be in that?
You can pick up an Arduino board and software for about $50 these days so these sorts of wacky homebrew projects are closer to everyday reality than you’d think. Considering the highest tech I ever got in school was building a balloon powered car, to have these resources at hand would be boon to science teachers everywhere.
While you won’t be drawing the Mona Lisa with this thing, it’s a fun experiment and the video – after the gratuitous nerd intro – is pretty funny.
Nuance has just announced that it is acquiring Transcend, a company that provides medical transcription and speech editing services, for approximately $300 million in cash, or $29.50 per Transcend share.
Nuance, which develops imaging and voice recognition technologies, says that Transcend will help expand its customer base to the healthcare and hospital market. For background, Transcend Services provides medical transcription services to the healthcare industry in the United States. The company’s technology converts physicians' voice recordings into electronic medical record documents.
Transcend utilizes a combination of its proprietary Internet-based voice and data distribution technology, customer based technology, and home-based medical language specialists to convert physicians' voice recordings into electronic documents. It also provides outsourcing transcription and editing services on the customer's platform.
Nuance says the acquisition will add between $140 million and $150 million in revenue in the fiscal year 2013. Nuance also just bought Swype for $100 million last Fall, and acquired Vlingo in December. And the company recently partnered with Intel to add voice recognition to the chip giant’s products.
Enterprise software company Jive is launching a Social Customer Service software, which aims to help enterprises manage all things customer service while also tapping into social channels like Facebook and Twitter.
As you may know, Jive is one of the giants on the social enterprise space. Modeled to offer Facebook-like features to enterprises, Jive's software combines computing with social collaboration to offer fully-featured social networks for businesses. Its suite of applications help businesses collaborate on a variety of tasks, including holding discussions, communication, sharing documents, blogging, running polls, and social networking features and more.
Jive claims that their customer service platform is one of the more full-fledged, comprehensive applications on the market. Jive says that the software supports not only external customer communities but also internal team communities where customer service teams can share expertise and collaborate to resolve customer cases. The two communities are connected so that customer service teams can communicate easily with the customer community.
The application features integration with existing, CRM and case management systems; Facebook connectors that automatically pull customer questions on the company's fan page into the customer community and pushes answers back to the Facebook page, as well as social media monitoring and engagement so that agents can spot and respond to concerns on Twitter, Facebook and other channels.
Jive also connects with Outlook, and has added elements of game mechanics that encourage and reward active participation in customer service communities (powered by Bunchball. Additionally, customers and service agents can participate in their communities, post questions, access resources and participate in
discussions direct from their mobile devices, including iOS and Android.
We’re told the application is currently in private beta and will be broadly available at the end of the first quarter.
It’s not surprising that Jive is making a big push into the help desk market, considering the explosion of the space. Customer service SaaS applications are proving to be a competitive (and potentially lucrative) market. Zendesk has seen pretty significant success with its offering, and Get Satisfaction is also a leader in powering customer service communities. And Salesforce recently debuted its full-fledged customer service software, Desk.com.
Just hours before Apple is due to unveil what many think will be a new version of its best-selling iPad tablet, Samsung has tried to steal a little thunder by filing a lawsuit against the Cupertino company over patent violations in the newest models that Apple has on the market as of this morning, the iPhone 4S and the iPad 2. The suit was filed in Samsung’s home market of Korea.
Given how these patent suits have come to represent almost as much in public mindshare as they have in terms of actual licensing deals (and, more loftily, questions of originality in device design), this could be seen as a well-timed and key move by Samsung. But it also appears to be a reversal of strategy…
On the one hand, Apple has been storming the smartphone market since re-energizing with its iPhone 4S launch last autumn, and we could well see a similar effect in tablets if it launches a new iPad today — as many believe it will. Putting in a lawsuit before the launch is one way of Samsung keeping up its challenge against that onslaught.
But on the other hand, lodging a suit in Korea seems to mark a change in strategy in terms of how Samsung has decided to approach these legal battles.
Korea is actually one of the few markets that has seen Samsung drop suits against Apple: in November 2011, Samsung dropped a separate patent suit over the iPhone 4S, and at the time it looked like one of the main reasons was because it actually looked more like negative rather than positive PR for Samsung’s spin doctors.
At the time, a senior Samsung official, quoted in the Chosunilbo daily, noted, “We concluded that we should engage in legal battles with Apple only in the global market, but not in order to gain more market share in Korea.”
Fast-forward to today, and it may well have been that PR just formed one part of the decision (and maybe even a small part), while Samsung worked out a better and more powerful suit against Apple. While the original suit only pertained to Apple’s iPhone 4S, this latest, according to an article in Reuters, covers the infringement of three patents in both the iPhone 4S and the iPad 2.
The three patents pertain to data display, user interface and short text messages. While the first two sound very general, the third is a bit more specific but it’s still not clear exactly what that last one means: possibly the abbreviations that Apple lets you program to expand into longer phrases?
On a wider level, Samsung and Apple are still actively going after each other in a number of other countries, including Australia, Germany, France, Italy and the U.S — 30 cases in all covering 10 countries, covering technical as well as design patents used in their respective ranges of mobile devices.
Those cases are not proving to be one-sided in their outcome although there have been some notable and possibly debilitating injunctions on Samsung tablets in the process, specifically in Germany and Australia. Apple is also involved in patent cases against other Android-based device makers, most notably HTC and Motorola Mobility.
To be sure, Samsung and Apple have been fairly liberal with the amount of suits they have going on against each other right now, but it’s probably also worth pointing out that Samsung also got a bit more active in its filings around the time of the iPhone 4S launch (particularly in Europe) so we may see more coming from the company in the days and weeks ahead.
We have reached out to both Apple and Samsung for comment and will update this story as we learn more.
Just hours before Apple is due to unveil what many think will be a new version of its best-selling iPad tablet, Samsung has tried to steal a little thunder by filing a lawsuit against the Cupertino company over patent violations in the newest models that Apple has on the market as of this morning, the iPhone 4S and the iPad 2. The suit was filed in Samsung’s home market of Korea.
Given how these patent suits have come to represent almost as much in public mindshare as they have in terms of actual licensing deals (and, more loftily, questions of originality in device design), this could be seen as a well-timed and key move by Samsung. But it also appears to be a reversal of strategy…
On the one hand, Apple has been storming the smartphone market since re-energizing with its iPhone 4S launch last autumn, and we could well see a similar effect in tablets if it launches a new iPad today — as many believe it will. Putting in a lawsuit before the launch is one way of Samsung keeping up its challenge against that onslaught.
But on the other hand, lodging a suit in Korea seems to mark a change in strategy in terms of how Samsung has decided to approach these legal battles.
Korea is actually one of the few markets that has seen Samsung drop suits against Apple: in November 2011, Samsung dropped a separate patent suit over the iPhone 4S, and at the time it looked like one of the main reasons was because it actually looked more like negative rather than positive PR for Samsung’s spin doctors.
At the time, a senior Samsung official, quoted in the Chosunilbo daily, noted, “We concluded that we should engage in legal battles with Apple only in the global market, but not in order to gain more market share in Korea.”
Fast-forward to today, and it may well have been that PR just formed one part of the decision (and maybe even a small part), while Samsung worked out a better and more powerful suit against Apple. While the original suit only pertained to Apple’s iPhone 4S, this latest, according to an article in Reuters, covers the infringement of three patents in both the iPhone 4S and the iPad 2.
The three patents pertain to data display, user interface and short text messages. While the first two sound very general, the third is a bit more specific but it’s still not clear exactly what that last one means: possibly the abbreviations that Apple lets you program to expand into longer phrases?
On a wider level, Samsung and Apple are still actively going after each other in a number of other countries, including Australia, Germany, France, Italy and the U.S — 30 cases in all covering 10 countries, covering technical as well as design patents used in their respective ranges of mobile devices.
Those cases are not proving to be one-sided in their outcome although there have been some notable and possibly debilitating injunctions on Samsung tablets in the process, specifically in Germany and Australia. Apple is also involved in patent cases against other Android-based device makers, most notably HTC and Motorola Mobility.
To be sure, Samsung and Apple have been fairly liberal with the amount of suits they have going on against each other right now, but it’s probably also worth pointing out that Samsung also got a bit more active in its filings around the time of the iPhone 4S launch (particularly in Europe) so we may see more coming from the company in the days and weeks ahead.
We have reached out to both Apple and Samsung for comment and will update this story as we learn more. Update: Samsung has provided TechCrunch with a statement on its position in the case in Korea. It says that the patents here are different from those in the case filed in April 2011, which pertained to telecoms standards (those that fall under so-called FRAND licensing): “Samsung has today (March 6) filed a lawsuit against Apple in the Seoul Central District Court over its continued infringement of three utility patents in its iPhone 4S and iPad 2. This lawsuit is separate from the proceedings filed against Apple in Seoul in April 2011 regarding infringement of telecommunications standards-related patents. Samsung will continue to assert its intellectual property rights and defend its investment in innovation in order to ensure our continued growth in the mobile industry.”
PlayMob, whose product GiverBoard lets charities fundraise via a clever in-game micro-payment mechanic, has secured £500,000 ($787,000) funding from NESTA and Midven alongside angel investors. The team will now expand from 8 to 13 and the product gets a decent shot in the arm.
Founded in 2007, Playmob’s GiverBoard lets charities fundraise by allowing players of social games to buy virtual items linked to a charity. The ideal scenario is that a tractor bought in Farmville could be linked to a charity which plants crops in Zambia. In a test campaign, a ThanksGiving charity campaign in November 2011 where virtual food hats bought meals for homeless children and families in New York. So it clearly works. But it gets better.
There’s an incentive for game developers to use GiverBoard as well: it makes them look better in the eyes of the users (charity etc) but more significantly, as CEO and founder Jude Ower points out, players get the instant gratification of doing good while buying their virtual goods.
And as we pointed out last year the idea also entices users to get used to the idea of paying for virtual goods by donating to charity. Once they’ve done that they are more inclined to pay for normal goods, thus giving the game an uplift in revenues. When Zynga sold ‘Sweet seeds’ for the Haiti earthquake disaster 80% of givers were non-paying players. So Giverboard educates players into playing more often and get them hooked. It’s a charity trojan horse!
Furthermore, charities can reduce the costs of fundraising while increasing engagement by getting in front of mass audiences online, while getting a more sustainable ‘Little and often’ income stream rather than the unsustainable big campaign approach.
Developers can nominate a virtual good within their game they wish to donate a % (minimum 50%) to a charity and select which cause or specific charity they wish to promote. Developers give 50% of the revenue from the purchase of the virtual good to the associated charity. Playmob charges a flat fee of 10%.
The Charity then selects which types of games and objects they wish to be matched with. Brands can also pick up a sponsor package to support a charity. Playmob makes extra revenue from providing analytics on the effectiveness of the goods.
Essentially it’s a game layer on top of games to allow payment for everything. Smart, huh.
PlayMob, who’s product GiverBoard lets charities fundraise via a clever in-game micro-payment mechanic, has secured £500,000 ($787,000) funding from NESTA and Midven alongside angel investors. The team will now expand from 8 to 13 and the product gets a decent shot in the arm.
Founded in 2007, Playmob’s GiverBoard lets charities fundraise by allowing players of social games to buy virtual items linked to a charity. The ideal scenario is that a tractor bought in Farmville could be linked to a charity which plants crops in Zambia. In a test campaign, a ThanksGiving charity campaign in November 2011 where virtual food hats bought meals for homeless children and families in New York. So it clearly works. But it gets better.
There’s an incentive for game developers to use GiverBoard as well: it makes them look better in the eyes of the users (charity etc) but more significantly, as CEO and founder Jude Ower points out, players get the instant gratification of doing good while buying their virtual goods.
And as we pointed out last year the idea also entices users to get used to the idea of paying for virtual goods by donating to charity. Once they’ve done that they are more inclined to pay for normal goods, thus giving the game an uplift in revenues. When Zynga sold ‘Sweet seeds’ for the Haiti earthquake disaster 80% of givers were non-paying players. So Giverboard educates players into playing more often and get them hooked. It’s a charity trojan horse!
Furthermore, charities can reduce the costs of fundraising while increasing engagement by getting in front of mass audiences online, while getting a more sustainable ‘Little and often’ income stream rather than the unsustainable big campaign approach.
Developers can nominate a virtual good within their game they wish to donate a % (minimum 50%) to a charity and select which cause or specific charity they wish to promote. Developers give 50% of the revenue from the purchase of the virtual good to the associated charity. Playmob charges a flat fee of 10%.
The Charity then selects which types of games and objects they wish to be matched with. Brands can also pick up a sponsor package to support a charity. Playmob makes extra revenue from providing analytics on the effectiveness of the goods.
Essentially it’s a game layer on top of games to allow payment for everything. Smart, huh.
We’re republishing this timeless classic, because it still stands pretty much as is exactly as is year later. Believe it or not, I had this very same conversation about Groupme versus Beluga as a preferred messaging app WITH THE SAME EXACT COLLEAGUE today, though yeah, in retrospect, the dude was right, Facebook did “do something” to them. Also, I’m not hosting a “pussies in tech” panel with Sklar this year. Instead, this. Come, if you actually have a badge.
****************************************************************************************************************
I had a conversation today with a colleague to discuss our SXSW Interactive strategy. My coworker figured, rightfully, that SXSW would be a shitshow and that maybe we should use one of the much talked about group texting apps to stay in touch. I only “use” one group texting app, one that I covered for TechCrunch, and thus suggested GroupMe. My colleague said that he liked Beluga better and that we should use Beluga. And then he hesitated, “Hmm … Well maybe we shouldn’t use Beluga because what if Facebook ‘does something to them’ ?…”
!!! This is the hyper-techy microcosm that we live in, where you’re scared to use a budding app to communicate with co-workers during a conference lest a company “do something” to it. And what? You end up looking uncool?
While there’s no way I’m going to ever be the ideal use case for Group Texting (… the new “Location Based”), because it necessitates having more than one friend, I can’t really see the big problem it solves. Or rather, I have no idea why there are tens of tens apps in in the space.
Also, I have no idea why a SXSW breakfast with Guy Kawasaki is presented as a prize, but the email promoting it has miraculously found its way to my inbox, along with a bunch of nonsense “VIP” events sponsored by non-tech companies and a ton of pitches from a bunch of startups that just confuse me by their reluctance to say what it is they actually do, lest someone out there clones their killer app before their plane hits Austin-Bergstrom.
A follow through on one of these pitches leads you down an inbox rabbit hole where seven emails later you figure out it’s a Group Texting app but the founders don’t want to reveal that just yet because they don’t want anyone to copy them. “Then why pitch to the press so early?” “To build “buzz” before SXSW.” Geez. Geez.
While I wouldn’t miss it for the world (Rachel Sklar and I are moderating an incredibly worthy and industry relevant core conversation here), SXSW creeps me out, if simply because it makes otherwise sane people act so silly.
But this SXSW Influencers Guide, a mashup of Plancast and some shady thing called Socmetrics, is the epitome of why I’m already sick of SXSW four days before it’s even started. Mainly because it reminds me that we’re now viewing each other as “influencers” and have somehow stopped looking at each other as “people” — I didn’t study so hard to get out of high school just to be faced with a whole ‘nother high school as an adult.
And I just RSVP’d in a panic to some super-duper VIP thing while writing this, so trust me, I understand the allure of hobnobbing with the tech snobs and am not immune. But at the drunken end of the SXSW day proceed with caution: You almost never want to be a part of the cool kids, because they’re not the ones actually getting anything done. I promise.
If SXSW rolled in 100 Miller Lite-sponsored cattle cars in front of the convention center, they'd solve at least half of the hotel shortage.—
Gabe Rivera (@gaberivera) February 10, 2012
Editor’s note (Yeah I’m an editor now, suck it 2nd grade teacher who was all “Does NOT work well with others”on my report card. Yeah you know who you are, Ms. Dudley. ): We’re republishing this timeless classic, because it still stands pretty much as is exactly as is year later. Believe it or not, I had this very same conversation about Groupme versus Beluga as a preferred messaging app WITH THE SAME EXACT COLLEAGUE today, though yeah, in retrospect, the dude was right, Facebook did do “something to them.” Also, I’m not hosting a “pussies in tech” panel with Sklar this year. Instead, this. Come, if you actually have a badge.
I had a conversation today with a colleague to discuss our SXSW Interactive strategy. My coworker figured, rightfully, that SXSW would be a shitshow and that maybe we should use one of the much talked about group texting apps to stay in touch. I only “use” one group texting app, one that I covered for TechCrunch, and thus suggested GroupMe. My colleague said that he liked Beluga better and that we should use Beluga. And then he hesitated, “Hmm … Well maybe we shouldn’t use Beluga because what if Facebook ‘does something to them’ ?…”
!!! This is the hyper-techy microcosm that we live in, where you’re scared to use a budding app to communicate with co-workers during a conference lest a company “do something” to it. And what? You end up looking uncool?
While there’s no way I’m going to ever be the ideal use case for Group Texting (… the new “Location Based”), because it necessitates having more than one friend, I can’t really see the big problem it solves. Or rather, I have no idea why there are tens of tens apps in in the space.
Also, I have no idea why a SXSW breakfast with Guy Kawasaki is presented as a prize, but the email promoting it has miraculously found its way to my inbox, along with a bunch of nonsense “VIP” events sponsored by non-tech companies and a ton of pitches from a bunch of startups that just confuse me by their reluctance to say what it is they actually do, lest someone out there clones their killer app before their plane hits Austin-Bergstrom.
A follow through on one of these pitches leads you down an inbox rabbit hole where seven emails later you figure out it’s a Group Texting app but the founders don’t want to reveal that just yet because they don’t want anyone to copy them. “Then why pitch to the press so early?” “To build “buzz” before SXSW.” Geez. Geez.
While I wouldn’t miss it for the world (Rachel Sklar and I are moderating an incredibly worthy and industry relevant core conversation here), SXSW creeps me out, if simply because it makes otherwise sane people act so silly.
But this SXSW Influencers Guide, a mashup of Plancast and some shady thing called Socmetrics, is the epitome of why I’m already sick of SXSW four days before it’s even started. Mainly because it reminds me that we’re now viewing each other as “influencers” and have somehow stopped looking at each other as “people” — I didn’t study so hard to get out of high school just to be faced with a whole ‘nother high school as an adult.
And I just RSVP’d in a panic to some super-duper VIP thing while writing this, so trust me, I understand the allure of hobnobbing with the tech snobs and am not immune. But at the drunken end of the SXSW day proceed with caution: You almost never want to be a part of the cool kids, because they’re not the ones actually getting anything done. I promise.
If SXSW rolled in 100 Miller Lite-sponsored cattle cars in front of the convention center, they'd solve at least half of the hotel shortage.—
Gabe Rivera (@gaberivera) February 10, 2012
We’re republishing this timeless classic, because it still stands pretty much as is exactly as is year later. Believe it or not, I had this very same conversation about GroupMe versus Beluga as a preferred messaging app WITH THE SAME EXACT COLLEAGUE today, though yeah, in retrospect, the dude was right, Facebook did “do something” to them. Also, I’m not hosting a “pussies in tech” panel with Sklar this year. Instead, this. Come, if you actually have a badge.
****************************************************************************************************************
I had a conversation today with a colleague to discuss our SXSW Interactive strategy. My coworker figured, rightfully, that SXSW would be a shitshow and that maybe we should use one of the much talked about group texting apps to stay in touch. I only “use” one group texting app, one that I covered for TechCrunch, and thus suggested GroupMe. My colleague said that he liked Beluga better and that we should use Beluga. And then he hesitated, “Hmm … Well maybe we shouldn’t use Beluga because what if Facebook ‘does something to them’ ?…”
!!! This is the hyper-techy microcosm that we live in, where you’re scared to use a budding app to communicate with co-workers during a conference lest a company “do something” to it. And what? You end up looking uncool?
While there’s no way I’m going to ever be the ideal use case for Group Texting (… the new “Location Based”), because it necessitates having more than one friend, I can’t really see the big problem it solves. Or rather, I have no idea why there are tens of tens apps in in the space.
Also, I have no idea why a SXSW breakfast with Guy Kawasaki is presented as a prize, but the email promoting it has miraculously found its way to my inbox, along with a bunch of nonsense “VIP” events sponsored by non-tech companies and a ton of pitches from a bunch of startups that just confuse me by their reluctance to say what it is they actually do, lest someone out there clones their killer app before their plane hits Austin-Bergstrom.
A follow through on one of these pitches leads you down an inbox rabbit hole where seven emails later you figure out it’s a Group Texting app but the founders don’t want to reveal that just yet because they don’t want anyone to copy them. “Then why pitch to the press so early?” “To build “buzz” before SXSW.” Geez. Geez.
While I wouldn’t miss it for the world (Rachel Sklar and I are moderating an incredibly worthy and industry relevant core conversation here), SXSW creeps me out, if simply because it makes otherwise sane people act so silly.
But this SXSW Influencers Guide, a mashup of Plancast and some shady thing called Socmetrics, is the epitome of why I’m already sick of SXSW four days before it’s even started. Mainly because it reminds me that we’re now viewing each other as “influencers” and have somehow stopped looking at each other as “people” — I didn’t study so hard to get out of high school just to be faced with a whole ‘nother high school as an adult.
And I just RSVP’d in a panic to some super-duper VIP thing while writing this, so trust me, I understand the allure of hobnobbing with the tech snobs and am not immune. But at the drunken end of the SXSW day proceed with caution: You almost never want to be a part of the cool kids, because they’re not the ones actually getting anything done. I promise. Image: ninebullets
If SXSW rolled in 100 Miller Lite-sponsored cattle cars in front of the convention center, they'd solve at least half of the hotel shortage.—
Gabe Rivera (@gaberivera) February 10, 2012
We’re republishing this timeless classic, because it still stands pretty much as is a year later. Believe it or not, I had this very same conversation about GroupMe versus Beluga as a preferred messaging app WITH THE SAME EXACT COLLEAGUE today, though yeah, in retrospect, the dude was right, Facebook did “do something” to them. Also, I’m not hosting a “pussies in tech” panel with Sklar this year … Instead, this. Come, if you actually have a badge.
****************************************************************************************************************
I had a conversation today with a colleague to discuss our SXSW Interactive strategy. My coworker figured, rightfully, that SXSW would be a shitshow and that maybe we should use one of the much talked about group texting apps to stay in touch. I only “use” one group texting app, one that I covered for TechCrunch, and thus suggested GroupMe. My colleague said that he liked Beluga better and that we should use Beluga. And then he hesitated, “Hmm … Well maybe we shouldn’t use Beluga because what if Facebook ‘does something to them’ ?…”
!!! This is the hyper-techy microcosm that we live in, where you’re scared to use a budding app to communicate with co-workers during a conference lest a company “do something” to it. And what? You end up looking uncool?
While there’s no way I’m going to ever be the ideal use case for Group Texting (… the new “Location Based”), because it necessitates having more than one friend, I can’t really see the big problem it solves. Or rather, I have no idea why there are tens of tens apps in in the space.
Also, I have no idea why a SXSW breakfast with Guy Kawasaki is presented as a prize, but the email promoting it has miraculously found its way to my inbox, along with a bunch of nonsense “VIP” events sponsored by non-tech companies and a ton of pitches from a bunch of startups that just confuse me by their reluctance to say what it is they actually do, lest someone out there clones their killer app before their plane hits Austin-Bergstrom.
A follow through on one of these pitches leads you down an inbox rabbit hole where seven emails later you figure out it’s a Group Texting app but the founders don’t want to reveal that just yet because they don’t want anyone to copy them. “Then why pitch to the press so early?” “To build “buzz” before SXSW.” Geez. Geez.
While I wouldn’t miss it for the world (Rachel Sklar and I are moderating an incredibly worthy and industry relevant core conversation here), SXSW creeps me out, if simply because it makes otherwise sane people act so silly.
But this SXSW Influencers Guide, a mashup of Plancast and some shady thing called Socmetrics, is the epitome of why I’m already sick of SXSW four days before it’s even started. Mainly because it reminds me that we’re now viewing each other as “influencers” and have somehow stopped looking at each other as “people” — I didn’t study so hard to get out of high school just to be faced with a whole ‘nother high school as an adult.
And I just RSVP’d in a panic to some super-duper VIP thing while writing this, so trust me, I understand the allure of hobnobbing with the tech snobs and am not immune. But at the drunken end of the SXSW day proceed with caution: You almost never want to be a part of the cool kids, because they’re not the ones actually getting anything done. I promise. Image: ninebullets
If SXSW rolled in 100 Miller Lite-sponsored cattle cars in front of the convention center, they'd solve at least half of the hotel shortage.—
Gabe Rivera (@gaberivera) February 10, 2012
BlogFrog, a self-described “social activation platform,” has raised $3.2 million in a Series A round of funding.
The company was first known as a community for “mommy bloggers”, allowing them to add social features to their sites. In the last year or so, however, BlogFrog has shifted direction, using its technology and audience for a new end — helping marketers reach an influential audience.
That doesn’t mean it’s another ad network, says co-founder and CEO Rustin Banks: “We’re basically anti-banner ads.” Instead, it currently offers two products. One creates online communities where fans of a given brand, like this site for KOA campgrounds. The other recruits influential bloggers (Banks says BlogFrog has a database of 65,000) to post on topics related to a campaign, and then include an ad unit at the end with a call to join the conversation. See, for example, this post on the Buried With Children blog for a LEGO campaign.
The round was led by Grotech Ventures, with participation from existing investors, including TechStars founder David Cohen. Banks says the big plan for the money is to “get the word out” — he estimates that the company is only selling 5 percent of the campaigns that it could with the bloggers in its database. Among other things, that means doubling the head count this year and opening an office in New York City.
