Month: December 2006

Arun Katiyar (CEO of Seraja, in which I have an investment) writes:

Capturing events is becoming simpler every day. Today, digital cameras and MP3 recorders, web cams and mobiles, have become so pervasive that practically anything we want captured, can be documented. Kids have begun to use these devices as if they were born with it.

The problem is exactly this: what does one do with the vast amount of unstructured data being thrown up by digital recording devices and sensors that all of us own?
…
Essentially, what we are looking at is this: People are willing contributors of knowledge and their time. They need a simple system that helps them contribute when they want, from where they want and how much they want. And, more critically, if they need to stay anonymous, that need must be respected.

Mobiles and the Internet are making this possible. There are a number of event entry mechanisms which are coming up that help make sense of the unstructured data that digital devices capture.

SPIEGEL ONLINE writes: “Google and Microsoft are racing to provide computer users with a virtual world tour. Who will be the first to offer its readers a 3-D map of the globe?”

Gates and Google founders Sergej Brin and Larry Page know perfectly well that their digital maps represent the key to a future market potentially worth billions. The 3D Web, as Internet experts call it, could be a platform for new forms of advertising, social networking and online trading. Google Earth and Virtual Earth are like “a seed being sown,” according to Internet analyst Greg Sterling, who adds that he has “no idea” today what exactly will grow from that seed.

WSJ has a discussion between Todd Dagres and David Hornik:

Mr. Dagres begins: Web 2.0 is a bubble for 3 reasons: 1) There is far too much money chasing Web 2.0 deals. Too much money means too many companies getting funded at higher valuations. 2) There are virtually no barriers to entry in Web 2.0 and therefore the ability to develop a unique solution and sustain a competitive advantage is virtually nil. Therefore, it’s difficult for Web 2.0 companies to build long term value. 3) There is very little liquidity in the market for Web 2.0 companies.
…
Mr. Hornik responds: I do not believe that the existence of too much venture capital money chasing too few interesting ideas constitutes a bubble. The Web 1.0 bubble inflated because the public markets were willing to bet on unproven ideas. Public markets are ill suited to evaluating such risks. On the other hand, the venture capital community exists precisely to take on that risk. While many Web 2.0 companies will fail, they will not likely fail in significantly greater proportions than has been the case with other venture investments historically.

WSJ writes: “The social-networking revolution is coming to health care, at the same time that new Internet technologies and software programs are making it easier than ever for consumers to find timely, personalized health information online. Patients who once connected mainly through email discussion groups and chat rooms are building more sophisticated virtual communities that enable them to share information about treatment and coping and build a personal network of friends. At the same time, traditional Web sites that once offered cumbersome pages of static data are developing blogs, podcasts, and customized search engines to deliver the most relevant and timely information on health topics.”