Mary Panttaja

We attended the Silicon Valley Association of Startup Entrepreneurs Launch: Silicon Valley yesterday. It was very interesting and helpful. They showcased the top 30 startups from 170 applicants. Besides the wide variety of business concepts and models of the most attractive of the presentations—which is an interesting thing in itself—it was quite interesting to note how wide the disparity was between these, the top 15% hand-selected out of the larger pool.

And they differed in quality along quite a set of variables:

• Strength and quality of the underlying technology innovation
• Power and diversity of the underlying financial model
• Innovative leverage of existing markets
• Presentation skills and ability to communicate

It surprised me that there wasn’t more depth in the group at this level, though this is just one place that such companies can showcase their work. It was a great event though and I really got a sense of the kind of topics that are getting attention.

And for me, after being holed up in my country hermitage writing for years, a little practice in working a room again. Never my best suit, but not impossible to revive I see.

We did run into two of our former associates who are now entrepreneurs in their own right. Very cool to see them and reconnect.

Jim is posting on this event as well at jim.panttaja.com.

Pamela Slim posted an article that gets directly to one of the problems with a over emphasis on measurement: Obsession with the competition is a luxury of the over-funded

It is great reminder for me that there are very practical ways to explain and apply the principals of AWM (the Arising World Model). If not, then it’s not very useful. It’s application needs to extend from mundane, practical problems to the spiritual and philosophic questions that we ask ourselves. Everything should work

So here we are. The second “developer day” in two weeks. Today we’re learning everything there is to know about the new Google developer tools and APIs. We did this two weeks ago at Salesforce.

It’s all fascinating and the technologies look like fun—though complex. One key element that I didn’t really appreciate until spending some time here is that these “development platforms” are significantly different from what we used to consider a development platform. Adobe Flex 2.0, for example, is a general development platform with which you can build any application for any purpose. This is traditionally what we thought of as a development platform.

These platforms (Google and Salesforce) are decidedly different. When you build with these platforms you are not only getting a platform with sophisticated tools. They are aimed at very particular types of applications designed around the core capabilities of the base platform—-search, maps, contact data.

The other element that is even more radical is that you are buying into an already existing audience. An application built on the Salesforce platform is intended only for Salesforce customers. Every user has to pay a monthly fee to Salesforce, a per person tax, if you will. Very few applications would be able to support that tax, but if they are already a Salesforce customer, the platform support is virtually free, Salesforce markets your application to them, it is trivial for them to subscribe, and you only need to charge a reasonable delta subscription. In fact, Salesforce will collect it for you.

What does Salesforce get? More sticky applications to attract and serve their customers without having to build or maintain them. So if you have some particularly valuable IP that serves this community you can dive in with a minimum of infrastructure and overhead. (One partner brought in $2-3 million in the first year with 6 company members—they have very widely useful IP—most Salesforce customers decide to buy it.)

Google has a whole suite of developer platforms that do maps, gadgets, mashups, etc. These are also targeted to Google users—a larger audience than almost anyone else has. Google provides the platform, the tools, the audience, the “marketing” (they list your app in the list of available components). The sofware is relatively easy to build—still takes wizards, but they can do things in record time.

Google, of course, gets more pages served. They hope that the gadget maker’s revenue model is to serve Google ads which bring Google revenue which they share with the maker. This seems to be the primary revenue model for these applications—ad serving, and perhaps some extended services or products served from the gadget maker’s base website.

And Jim points out that Google views the consumer as their primary customer. So you need to be interested in fulfilling a need in the consumer marketplace. That’s the target market. (It is interesting to me that it’s never been a market I really considered.) This has help me get a handle on what the “new 2.0″ world (”wisdom of the crowds”) is really about—meeting the needs and interests of the general public (consumer as a label is harsh, many of the services/features used are not just about consuming.)

All educational. Not sure where it leads yet.