Was reading TechCrunch today and noticed this weird ad come up for a third time ("Make Him Fall For You" on right side). Not to say that TechCrunch readers aren't A) women, and/or B) interested in relationship advice, but it seems a little out of place amongst the other ads for web design, server hosting, and consumer electronics.
CrunchGear has a demo video from CES of the Palm Pre. Overall, I think it looks pretty cool. Definitely a huge step up from where the PalmOS was before, but I can't help but feel like it's a very "Me, too" product. The Card View method of viewing applications is nice and there are some pretty nice innovations on the Contacts side of things. If you don't currently own a touch screen smart phone, I think the Pre is a very viable alternative to the iPhone, Blackberry Storm, or anything from HTC.
Rumor has it that they are going to price the phone at $399 SUBSIDIZED, which would put it at the high end of touch screen smart phones. A quote from Palm CEO Ed Colligan, as reported by Peter Kafka, when asked if Palm considered pricing the Pre at $200 or below to compete with the iPhone was "Why would we do that when we have a significantly better product?" Well Ed, you don't really have a significantly better product. You can make the argument that the Pre is as good, at best slightly better than the iPhone (though I wouldn't). In other words, I wouldn't switch to the Pre from my 1st generation iPhone because there's nothing that much better in the Pre. And let's not forget that anything that can be claimed to be better on the Pre can easily be copied in future iPhone software updates.
As someone who has had a litany of smart phones, it took a significant feature or service improvement from one device to another for me to make the switch. I started with the original Sidekick, moved to a color Sidekick (for the color, of course), then to a T-Mobile MDA (Edge performance increase plus more flexibility in adding apps on Windows Mobile), and finally to an iPhone (my first video iPod plus all the amazing UI features). I even bypassed an upgrade to the 3G iPhone because faster data speed wasn't enough for me to pay extra for essentially the same UI. Suffice it to say, simply being a little bit better (if at all) is not enough for someone to want to pay $100-$200 more for a Pre than a 3G iPhone.
As reported by the Wall Street Journal, Facebook has pulled its planned employee stock sale. This would have allowed the 800+ employees of Facebook to sell a portion of their stock to private investors - supposedly $900,000 worth or 10% of vested shares, whichever is less. Reasons that some outlets are stating was that Facebook couldn't find any private investors who wanted to buy the stock at a company valuation of $4 billion - a far cry from the $15 billion valuation Microsoft got for its $240 million investment.
I'm not really shocked that there were no takers at $4 billion. At the time of the original Microsoft investment, I thought Facebook's value was somewhere around $7 - $8 billion. Then when Techcrunch got a hold of some internal financials, I did a back of the envelope recalculation and stated that they should be valued at $4.5 - $5.25 billion which is 15 times projected 2008 revenues. Contrast that with Yahoo or Google which are valued at 2.19 and 4.13, respectively. These have gone down some recently but even if you calculate at January 2008 share prices, Yahoo and Google would still only trade at 4.44 and 10.91 times revenue, respectively. You can make the argument that these are more mature, slower growing companies but these are also PROFITABLE companies - in the case of Google, VERY PROFITABLE. Facebook, on the other hand has huge capital expenditures for servers/bandwidth ($200 million according to Techcrunch) and a hard to monetize audience. They may be GAAP profitable or break-even but most definitely not cash flow positive. Given the eventual slowdown in the online advertising market, I don't think it will get easier for them to squeeze more revenue from their users. However, the cost to support their growing legion of users is going to grow as they'll need more servers and bandwidth.
With that said, my new calculation of Facebook's value would only be at best 5 times revenue or $1.5 - $1.75 billion. Of course if they had allowed the employee sale to reset the value of their company, I doubt they'd raise enough through an eventual IPO to cover their growing capital expenditures. The more important question is, how much of the $516 million that they've raised is still there? My guess is that if they can't raise another $100+ million round soon, Facebook could be in for some tough times.
A few days ago I wrote about lay-offs and how I was glad we played it safe with our hiring strategy. Today, I read over at Techcrunch that Mahalo is cutting 10% of its staff. The thing I was most impressed with was CEO Jason Calacanis' honest admission that he let down the people who he had to lay-off.
"It’s my responsibility to make this hard decision and I don’t take it lightly. To the people impacted I’m very sorry that I wasn’t able to anticipate this better. It’s my fault and I’m sorry that you’ve got to bear the burden of my inability to better prepare."
Contrast this with the somewhat arms length statement Yahoo! CEO Jerry Yang made when he announced his 10% cut.
"affected employees will be notified of layoffs in the next several weeks. we understand that hearing this news now creates uncertainty, but we are moving ahead in a way that balances speed with a clear focus on accomplishing what is necessary to set the organization up for long term success. going forward it will continue to be important for us to make the right decisions to keep our business efficient and strong.
having layoffs is very difficult, particularly in light of all we’ve experienced this year. but we don’t take these decisions lightly, and are committed to treating affected employees fairly, offering severance and outplacement services."
In my very humble opinion, Jason's statement had genuine feeling and an admission of failure. It sounded like he really cared about his employees and that he took full responsibility for his actions. Jerry, on the other hand, seemed to take a very corporate approach in his statement. Almost as if he's disconnected from the entire process. In saying that they are "moving ahead in a way that balances speed with a clear focus", I felt he placed some of the blame on the company's poor performance on the employees themselves. As if letting them go will help turn the ship around. Let's not take into account the fact that Yahoo! could have sold itself to Microsoft just a few months ago for more than 2.5 times its current value. Or go back a few years and ask why Yahoo! couldn't counteract the Google threat even as they were sending millions of queries a day when Google powered their search engine. No where did I ever hear an admission of guilt from Jerry even though he is the head of the company.
In all fairness, it's easier to be close with your employees when the count is 50-60 versus 14,000+ and Jerry can't be blamed for all that is wrong with Yahoo! He inherited a company that lost its edge the day they decided to outsource their search technology. Still, a little contrition couldn't hurt.
One of the worst feelings in the professional world is having to let people go not due to performance (that's easy) but due to financial constraints. I've been reading about the latest rounds of lay-offs in our sector and it's pretty sad.
It's times like this that I'm so glad we've decided to stay lean. Yeah, maybe a project gets delayed here and there but I'll take that over having to tell someone they lost their job not because it was their fault but because it was my fault for not planning properly ahead of time. It's just unfortunate that it took a soft investment market for companies to realize they should pay attention to pesky little things like revenues and/or profits. My personal philosophy has always been that if cash flow cannot support a full-time employee (salary, benefits, taxes, etc) PLUS at least 25%, then don't hire that person. If it's a revenue generating position, have the person work on commission until they generate enough cash flow per the last sentence. Maybe it's time start-ups began running their businesses like nearly all the other businesses out there (ie, make profits now) instead of waiting for that next round or the buy out.
I'm reading Jessica Livingston's "Founder at Work" book and one particular chapter is quite appropriate. It's about how Charles Geschke and John Warnock only needed about $50K to start Adobe and that shortly thereafter they got $1 million plus contracts from guys like Apple and others to license their printing software. Why don't entrepreneurs think like that any more? Build something, make more money than you spent building it, repeat. Maybe that's just too pedestrian for today's founders but that's one way to ensure your business is recession proof. Another great read is Paul Graham's article about starting a technology company during a recession.